Decentralisation in Post-war Syria: Perspectives from Youth ِActive in Civil Society

Abstract

Decentralisation in post-war contexts requires designs tailored to local realities and governance challenges. Including civil society and youth voices has proven to strengthen both the process and outcomes. This paper analyses perspectives collected from 28 Syrian youths active in civil society organisations in North Syria shortly before the fall of the Assad regime in 2024, examining their views, concerns, and proposed framework for decentralisation in post-war Syria. Findings show that participants largely view decentralisation as beneficial for a future democratic Syria but question its feasibility under current political and social conditions. They also outline a framework for advancing decentralisation that emphasizes the importance of a political solution and empowered civil society.

Introduction

Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, Syria has experienced more than a decade of armed conflict, political fragmentation, and competing systems of governance. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in 2024, debates over the future structure of the Syrian state have gained renewed urgency, making decentralisation a particularly timely topic in discussions of governance, reconstruction, and sustainable peace.

Decentralisation has received growing scholarly attention for its potential to improve governance and for the factors that facilitate or hinder its implementation. Contextualising these insights in Syria, as a post-war setting, can enrich academic debates on post-war decentralisation while offering practical guidance for governance and peacebuilding efforts. This paper contributes to these discussions by examining the perspectives of Syrian youths active in civil society organisations in northern Syria. By incorporating youth activists’ voices, it highlights the importance of participatory governance and identifies key challenges to implementing effective decentralisation in post-war Syria. In doing so, the study seeks to advancing an understanding of decentralisation and inform future policy and institutional reforms. More specifically, it addresses the following research question: In which ways do youth activists in northern Syria perceive, and understand about the concept of decentralisation, and what strategic framework do they envision for its effective implementation in the post-war era? To answer this question, a focus group discussion was conducted with 28 Syrian activists in northern Syria in 2024.

Historically, from independence in 1946 until the Syrian revolution 2011, Syria consisted of administrative units—provinces, cities, towns, and municipalities—with legal, financial, and administrative autonomy. These units were intended to enhance local participation, improve public services, and support sustainable development (Alzoubi et al., 2022). Later during the Syrian revolution, the country fragmented into areas controlled by the Syrian government, opposition groups, and external actors. These included the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), the Syrian Interim Government (SIG) in parts of northwestern and northern Syria, and later Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in areas it came to control (Rabat & Gadzhimuradova, 2023). Despite this territorial fragmentation, Syria remained highly centralized until at least 2022 (Belser et al., 2022).

Recent efforts to decentralize power and authority in Syria aim to address regional disparities and strengthen local governance (Alzoubi, 2022). These initiatives have been partly driven by Syrian civil society organisations. For instance, the Center for Civil Society and Democracy (CCSD) (2022) developed a paper for the Syrian Constitutional Committee advocating a decentralized governance system for post-war Syria. Similarly, The Day After project (2022) conducted a study examining Syrians’ perceptions of decentralisation and its implementation. However, the current debate on decentralisation in Syria is shaped by a complex interaction of historical, political, and social factors. It is also influenced by the experience of Iraq’s federal system. Belser and Keil (2022) argue that its perceived failure has generated scepticism toward federalism as a solution for managing inter-group conflicts in Syria.

 

Theoretical Framework 

1. Conceptualisation of Decentralisation  

Decentralisation is commonly associated with promoting local autonomy, democracy, accountability, and improved socioeconomic outcomes (Demmelhuber & Sturm, 2021). In Syria, Legislative Decree No. 107 of 2011 defines decentralisation as the transfer of powers, responsibilities, and resources from the central government to local administrative units, enabling them to exercise authority independently within the legal framework. This definition encompasses three key dimensions of decentralisation: political, administrative, and fiscal. Political decentralisation involves transferring decision-making authority to local governments, while administrative decentralisation refers to delegating administrative responsibilities to lower levels of government (Alshab, 2021; Bueno & Salapa, 2022). Fiscal decentralisation concerns the transfer of financial resources and budgetary authority to local authorities. Together, these dimensions are expected to enhance political participation, improve service delivery and development outcomes, and enable more effective allocation of resources according to local needs.

2. Decentralisation in Post-War Contexts

Decentralisation in post-war contexts has attracted growing scholarly attention because of its potential to support governance, peacebuilding, and development while also facing significant implementation challenges (West & Kloeck-Jenson, 1999; Schultze‐Kraft & Morina, 2014). The literature identifies several obstacles. First, post-war environments are often characterized by insecurity, weak institutions, and, in some cases, ongoing conflict, which can undermine decentralized governance structures (Brinkerhoff & Johnson, 2009; Newbrander et al., 2011). Second, local authorities frequently lack the administrative capacity and expertise needed to manage newly devolved responsibilities, particularly where infrastructure and human resources have been severely damaged (Tulchin, 2012). Third, political instability, power struggles, and low trust in state institutions can hinder effective implementation (McElhinny, 2006). Fourth, decentralisation may be weakened by limited transparency and accountability, creating opportunities for corruption and resource misuse (Devas, 2005). Finally, post-war states often face fiscal constraints and resource shortages that limit the effectiveness of decentralized governance (Marysse, 2004).

Addressing these challenges and adapting decentralisation to local contexts is essential for effective governance, participation, and sustainable peacebuilding. Many countries emerging from conflict have implemented decentralisation; however, scholars and policymakers caution against doing so without considering the unique characteristics and political contexts of local communities (The Day After, 2022). In countries like Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and Angola, decentralisation led to systems of proportional representation based on tribal, national, or confessional quotas. As a result, these countries struggled to establish representative democratic institutions, and divisiveness and violence persisted even after political settlements were achieved (Sisk, 2013).

3. Decentralisation and Civil Society

Civil society engagement and decentralisation of state authority are essential for achieving effective decentralisation outcomes (Brannstrom et al., 2004). Civil society actors, alongside Western donors and the World Bank, have long supported decentralisation reforms and played a significant role in governance transitions (Demmelhuber & Sturm, 2021; Ito, 2011). Devas (2005) highlights that civil society organisations promote transparency, accountability, and citizen participation at the local level. In post-conflict contexts, they can also serve as a bridge between the state and society, helping rebuild trust and support sustainable peace (Reisinger, 2010). However, for civil society organizations (CSOs) to fulfil this role, the state must ensure CSOs’ independence and provide an enabling environment for cooperation, particularly in fragile post-war settings. Kimengsi and Gwan (2017) further argue that empowering civil society is crucial for successful decentralisation, as it enhances participation, capacity building, local ownership, transparency, and accountability.

4. Decentralisation and Youth

Youth participation and the decentralisation process influence each other mutually. Youth participation in public debate in general is crucial for promoting democratic processes, advocating for policy changes, and ensuring that the voices of young people are heard in decision-making processes. In the context of the Tunisian decentralisation reform process, the active engagement of youth on social media platforms like Facebook contributed to raising awareness, mobilizing support, and influencing public opinion on decentralisation and local elections (Gamha, 2019). On the other hand, decentralisation has an impact on the quality of youth lives in terms of their access to employment (Kwihangana, 2018), education, health care (Gervink, 2018), and many other areas.

 

Research Design

Building on CCSD’s earlier advocacy work, this paper integrates insights from Syrian civil society and youth to strengthen calls for decentralisation. CCSD (2022) previously contributed to a recommendation paper for Syria’s constitutional committee, outlining a post-war governance model based on democracy, participatory governance, transparency, and political and administrative decentralisation to empower local authorities. However, that work did not sufficiently address implementation challenges or civil society and youth perspectives.

To close this gap, we drew on CCSD’s youth network in Northern Syria, supported through an ongoing online youth project (October 2023–February 2025) aimed at promoting peace and reconciliation in non-regime areas and strengthening collaboration among local civil society organisations. Within this framework, we conducted a focus group discussion (FGD) with 28 youth activists to explore their views on decentralisation, including perceived challenges and recommendations for implementation. Participants consented to the use of their views, with surnames omitted to protect their security and anonymity.

 

Preliminary Results

1. Decentralisation is a Blessing in Post-War Syria 

This section provides an overview of participants’ perceptions about the  decentralisation benefits for Syria, particularly North Syria. Some participants define decentralisation as a governance system that ensures fair distribution of natural resources and meets local needs more efficiently,

“If we want to solve a small issue in our town like paving a road, we have to wait a long bureaucratic process to get the permission to do so. That’s why a decentralized government is absolutely better for us.” Lilian

Decentralisation is also seen as a governance approach that can boost the labour market through economic cooperation and knowledge sharing, while also safeguarding Syria’s ethnic and religious diversity by avoiding concentration of power in a single central authority. “Syria is a mosaic of religions and ethnicities; it should not be governed by a single central authority. Each group should be able to govern itself.” Ali

Some participants view decentralisation as a crucial escape from the current highly centralized government, equating centralization with dictatorship and prolonged oppression. For example, Sohaib noted: “Dictatorship and decentralisation cannot coexist. Centralization is the worst, leading to the marginalization of our areas.”

Overall, all participants strongly supported decentralisation, though they questioned its current feasibility, as discussed later in this paper. These findings align with a survey by The Day After (2022), where most respondents saw decentralisation as a driver of political change, stability, peace, and democratic transition in post-war Syria.

2. Roadmap towards Efficient Decentralisation in Syria 

The findings show broad consensus on a strategic framework for a centralization–decentralisation transition in Syria, consisting of three key steps. First, participants stressed the need for a political settlement to end the conflict, reduce suffering, ensure the dignified return of displaced Syrians, and establish Syrian–Syrian dialogue, viewing this as a necessary precondition for any decentralisation process.

Second, for decentralisation to take root, a constitution needs to be written that is a just and clear process for decentralising the government. The constitution, according to most participants, must include: 1) the establishment of a transitional government and a clear definition of its form and responsibilities; 2) a precise definition of decentralisation as a governing system, including clear delineation of the central government and regions, their respective powers, and the center’s responsibility to develop mechanisms for interregional communication. Participants stressed the need for detailed clarification, with one noting: “We must clearly define what we mean by decentralisation in the constitution; does it aim to separate North Syria out of the current borders, or just dividing the country into smaller authorities?” (Lilian). 3) ensuring regional independence from external interference, given the current reliance on international support and competing external actors in other regions, which participants identified as a major constraint on future decentralised governance; 4) guaranteeing judicial independence through separation from both regional and central authorities, with reference to models such as the U.S. Supreme Court; and 5) ensuring transparent and equitable distribution of Syria’s natural resources, along with allocating financial, human, and technical resources to regions based on their needs and development priorities.

Third, participants emphasized updating national laws in line with the new constitution and adapting them to the specific needs of each region. They suggested developing region-specific legislation to ensure decentralisation reflects local social, economic, and cultural contexts. To support this, they recommended a technocratic approach that prioritizes expertise and strengthens evidence-based policymaking for each area. Participants also stressed the importance of national laws protecting the freedom of expression of civil society and media. In addition, they called for legislation that strengthens civil society through financial and knowledge support, enabling it to act as a bridge between communities and the state and to monitor the overall centralization–decentralisation process.

3. Concerns about Feasibility 

Decentralisation in post-war contexts is often constrained by fragile state structures, limited local capacity, political instability, weak transparency, and scarce resources. However, theoretical assumptions by Brinkerhoff and Johnson (2009) and Newbrander et al. (2011) regarding fragile states and decentralisation do not fully apply to the Syrian case. Participants emphasized the absence of a functioning central state capable of acting as a governing core, describing Syria’s current reality as a “war–peace transition” rather than a post-war context. Similarly, Yazji (2016) argues that Syria’s fragmentation into multiple power centres could make a devolved political model a potential pathway to maintaining unity while addressing local grievances.

A key barrier identified by participants is the limited knowledge and expertise on decentralisation within civil society, compounded by insufficient institutional support for organisations to mobilise, advocate, and monitor governance processes, which aligns with Devas (2005). As one participant noted,

“In the past, we were unaware of these concepts until learning about the Turkish decentralisation experience. At first, we were inspired, but applying it to Syria revealed how complex it is due to a severe lack of knowledge about its mechanisms and implementation.” Hiba

This gap is not confined to civil society but also extends to decision-makers and broader society. One participant cautioned against pursuing full decentralisation at this stage due to limited expertise, warning it could increase fragmentation and conflict (Abdullah). At the same time, others argued that some political actors understand decentralisation but resist it to preserve their interests.

Political instability was identified as another major obstacle. Beyond definitions offered by McElhinny (2006), participants described instability in three dimensions: ongoing conflict between competing territorial authorities, external interference shaping domestic political outcomes, and internal intergroup divisions. As one participant stated, “meaningful progress is impossible under current unrest” (Ammar), while another emphasized that “decentralisation cannot proceed without agreement among external actors” (Ali). Intergroup exclusion was also highlighted, with some participants noting that existing political structures do not adequately represent all parties.

Lack of transparency and accountability further complicates decentralisation, largely due to the de facto emergence of current governing structures rather than democratic processes, as well as limited civil society experience in oversight roles. Finally, while participants acknowledged technical capacity gaps, especially regarding expertise on decentralisation, financial constraints were not explicitly discussed, likely due to data limitations rather than the absence of concern.

 

Conclusion

The preliminary results indicate that decentralisation is widely perceived as a promising governance model for post-war Syria, particularly in the northern regions. Participants argue it would enable fairer resource distribution, better responsiveness to local needs, and protection of Syria’s ethnic and religious diversity. It is also seen as an escape from the current worst situation of the centralized system, which is often associated with dictatorship and oppression. However, concerns remain about its feasibility in a fragile and unstable post-war context. Participants highlight the necessity of a political settlement, a new constitution clearly defining decentralisation, and updated laws adapted to regional specificities. Key challenges include limited expertise, political instability, and resource constraints. Future research should focus on practical strategies for implementation, including lessons from other post-conflict settings, capacity-building for local governance and civil society, and an assessment of financial and technical requirements. The role of international actors in shaping decentralisation outcomes also warrants further investigation.

 

Bibliography

Alshab, A. (2021) Centralization and decentralisation in Syria: Comparison of before and after 2011. Hasan Kalyoncu University.

Belser, E.M. and Keil, S. (2022) ‘Learning from Iraq? Debates on federalism and decentralisation for post-war Syria’, in Emerging Federal Structures in the Post-Cold War Era, pp. 189–214. Cham: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93669-3_9.

Brannstrom, C., Clarke, J. and Newport, M. (2004) ‘Civil society participation in the decentralisation of Brazil’s water resources: Assessing participation in three states’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(3), pp. 304–321. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0129-7619.2004.00188.x.

Bueno, D.C. and Salapa, A. (2022) ‘Decentralisation, technocracy, democracy and media, administrative control, participation, devolution and local governance: A rapid literature review’. Institutional Multidisciplinary Research and Development Journal, 4, 1-18.

Brinkerhoff, D.W. and Johnson, R.W. (2009) ‘Decentralized local governance in fragile states: Learning from Iraq’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(4), pp. 585–607. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309349424.

Centre for Civil Society and Democracy (CCSD) (2022) Inputs from Syrian civil society to the constitutional and political process. Available at: https://www.ccsd.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Inputs-from-Syrian-Civil-Society-to-the-Constitutional-and-Political-Process.pdf (Accessed: 19 June 2026).

Cheema, G.S. and Rondinelli, D.A. (eds.) (2007) Decentralizing governance: Emerging concepts and practices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1261v1.

Demmelhuber, T. and Sturm, R. (2021) Decentralisation in the Middle East and North Africa. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748920731.

Devas, N. (2005) ‘The challenges of decentralisation’, paper presented at the Global Forum on Fighting Corruption, Brasília, June 2005.

Gamha, M.E. (2019) Civil society advocacy for decentralisation and youth participation in local elections through Facebook: The Tunisian case. Malmö University, Faculty of Culture and Society (KS). Available at: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Amau%3Adiva-23755 .

Gervink, C.M. (2018) The contemporary state of youth care: Impact of the decentralisation on youth care employees: How decentralisation of youth care influenced how youth care employees carry out their work and how they cope with the changes in their working conditions. Master’s thesis. University of Twente.

Ito, T. (2011) ‘Historicizing the power of civil society: A perspective from decentralisation in Indonesia’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), pp. 413–433.

Kimengsi, J.N. and Gwan, S.A. (2017) ‘Reflections on decentralisation, community empowerment and sustainable development in Cameroon’, International Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences, 1(2), pp. 53–60.

Kwihangana, M. (2018) Decentralized programs and youth employment. Doctoral dissertation. Uganda Martyrs University.

Marysse, S.L. (2004) Decentralisation issues in post-conflict Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Antwerp: Institute of Development Policy and Management, University of Antwerp.

McElhinny, V.J. (2006) Inequality and empowerment: The political foundations of post-war decentralisation and development in El Salvador, 1992–2000. PhD thesis. University of Pittsburgh.

Newbrander, W., Peercy, C., Shepherd-Banigan, M. and Vergeer, P. (2011) ‘A tool for assessing management capacity at the decentralized level in a fragile state’, The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 27(4), pp. 276–294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.1108.

Rabat, L. and Gadzhimuradova, G.I. (2023) ‘The historical development of decentralisation in Syria’, Vostok. Afro-Aziatskie Obshchestva: Istoriia i Sovremennost, 6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31857/S086919080020201-8.

Schultze-Kraft, M. and Morina, E. (2014) ‘Decentralisation and accountability in war-to-peace transitions: The case of Kosovo’, IDS Bulletin, 45(5), pp. 92–104.

Sisk, T.D. (2013) ‘Power-sharing in civil war: Puzzles of peacemaking and peacebuilding’, Civil Wars, 15(sup1), pp. 7–20.

The Day After (2022) Decentralisation in Syria: Perceptions and expectations. Available at: https://tda-sy.org/wp-content/uploads/DecentralisationEN.pdf. (Accessed: 19 June 2026).

Tulchin, J.S. (2012) ‘Decentralisation and its discontents’, Latin American Research Review, 47(2), pp. 191–199.

West, H.G. and Kloeck-Jenson, S. (1999) ‘Betwixt and between: “Traditional authority” and democratic decentralisation in post-war Mozambique’, African Affairs, 98(393), pp. 455–484.

Yazigi, J. (2016) No going back: Why decentralisation is the future for Syria. London: European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep21550 (Accessed: 19 June 2026).

 

Further Reading

1. Keil, S., & Savelsberg, E. (2025). Governance in Post-Assad Syria. Pathways to Inclusive Governance in Syria Balancing Unity and Diversity, 7.‏
2. Bâli, A.Ü. and Dajani, O.M. (2024) ‘Negotiating pluralism: Dilemmas of decentralization in the Middle East’, UC Law SF Law Journal, 75(5), pp. 1165–1214. Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol75/iss5/2 (Accessed: 19 June 2026).
3. Pearce, S., Sophocleous, C., White, D., Laforest, R., Levasseur, K., & Frankel, S. (2025). Spaces of influence in decentralised governance systems: a comparison of substate civil society networks and politics in the United Kingdom and Canada. Voluntary Sector Review, 1-13.‏
4. Oosterom, M. (2018). Youth engagement in the realm of local governance: Opportunities for peace?. The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations.‏