In the complex landscape of post-Assad Syria, a fascinating transformation is unfolding. Ahmad al-Sharaa, once known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, has undergone a remarkable personal evolution, moving from a jihadist leader to a statesman governing from the presidential palace. But beneath this surface change, a deeper continuity persists. The governing system al-Sharaa is building mirrors the authoritarian and Sunni-dominant structure he advocated during his jihadist days. This article delves into the implications of this continuity, exploring how al-Sharaa's Syria reflects a realization of Golani's earlier vision rather than a departure from it.
The Evolution of a Jihadist Leader
Al-Sharaa's journey from jihadist commander to pragmatic statesman is intriguing. While he has severed formal ties with al-Qaeda and expanded engagement with various governments, the question arises: Has he truly transformed, or is this a strategic reinvention?
Golani's Theory of Rule
Golani's vision, articulated under his former name, was not revolutionary in the traditional sense. He aimed to construct a state rooted in religious legitimacy, hierarchical inclusion, and phased consolidation. This vision, with its emphasis on ideological compliance and the primacy of Sharia law, sets the tone for the governing system we see today.
From Doctrine to State Design
The concepts Golani espoused as a jihadist leader have now taken institutional form. The new Syrian state, with its concentration of power in the presidency, requirement for a Muslim head of state, and designation of Islamic jurisprudence as the principal source of legislation, echoes Golani's earlier framework. The composition of the government, dominated by figures from his movement, further underscores this continuity.
Governing Minorities: A Hierarchical Approach
In the new Syria, minorities are not treated as equal citizens. Golani's hierarchy, where protection is conditional and revocable, is evident in the constitutional structure. The broad limitation clauses in Article 23 allow for unequal enforcement, framing it as order maintenance. This hierarchy is further reinforced by surveillance, coercion, and violence directed at minority communities.
The Kurdish Case: A Test of Sovereignty
The Kurdish situation marks the outer boundary of this hierarchical system. Unlike Alawites or Druze, whose status can be managed within the religious framework, Kurdish actors exercised autonomous governance. The interim constitution, with its prohibition of non-state armed militias and concentration of executive authority, aims to dismantle this autonomy. Since 2025, military pressure, negotiated surrenders, and displacement have steadily eroded Kurdish autonomy.
Consolidation and International Implications
The state taking shape in Syria is a realization of Golani's vision. As such, it raises critical questions about international legal obligations, including nondiscrimination and the protection of minorities. Governments considering engagement with Syria must carefully assess whether this institutional framework aligns with these obligations. Recognition, reconstruction, and counterterrorism cooperation could inadvertently legitimize and reinforce a system of exclusion.
In conclusion, while al-Sharaa's personal transformation is notable, the continuity in Syria's governing system is a cause for concern. The state he is building reflects a deeper, more insidious realization of Golani's earlier vision, one that challenges the principles of equality and inclusivity.
