The tough realities surrounding Syria’s first election since the fall of the Assad regime were illustrated on Sunday by the sight of black-clad security personnel carrying assault rifles guarding electors in a Damascus library hall. It was a sobering reminder, were one needed, that Syria’s new start remains a fragile one.
These volatile circumstances were acknowledged by interim President Ahmad Al Shara. Speaking at the hall, Mr Al Shara said the poll of about 6,000 government-approved electors “suited the phase Syria is undergoing” and said it was part of a transition towards establishing a parliament that can pass legal reforms and state budgets.
Much has been said about the nature of this invitation-only election. Some Syrians are unimpressed with the fact that voting and running for the new parliament has been limited to 6,050 people appointed by a government commission. “No one cares because it is a nomination, not an election,” civil engineer Sara Raed told The National.
Such reserve is understandable but the hard truth is that Syria is a country with an array of serious security, economic and social challenges and few easy options about how to deal with them. It has been less than a year since the war-torn nation threw off a decades-long and highly corrupt regime that operated through sham elections and a rubber-stamp parliament. Many would-be voters still lack official ID documents and drawing up a national electoral roll is challenging.
Despite the legitimate desire for comprehensive, free and fair elections, rushing headlong into a full democratic reset in these circumstances may not lead to the stability and prosperity that Syrians rightly seek. Elections alone do not ensure good governance or stable political transitions. The case of Iraq is instructive here.
Following the US-led invasion of 2003, the country held several elections in 2005 intended to establish the legitimacy of its new institutions. These results were characterised by low turnouts and boycotts among some communities as well as voting dominated by sectarian and tribal loyalties. Far from securing a new start, this polarising contest proved to be merely a precursor to two years of violence that began in 2006.
Syria’s situation demands functioning institutions characterised by competence, transparency and accountability. Sunday’s poll is not the sole answer to the country’s problems but it does represent an incremental step forward in establishing some kind of participatory system.
As Syria moves forward on its long road to recovery, those who will be elected should be given a chance to prove themselves and the institutions they are running. However, much responsibility lies on the central government led by Mr Al Shara to make sure Sunday’s vote is part of a wider process of political consultation and that the new parliament’s decisions are listened to. Syria’s public will be watching closely; any failure to respect and support the new parliament in its work will undo much of the progress that has been achieved so far.
