Freedom and Authority in the New Syria: A Return to the Street

Emerging once again in Syria’s streets, today’s protests echo the spirit of the Syrian uprising of March 2011, a renewed call for dignity, accountability, and a voice in shaping the country’s future. The return to public dissent reflects not a new crisis, but the unfinished demands of a revolution that began fifteen years ago.
Perhaps it can be said that the reasons driving citizens in Syria to take to the streets today have, to a large extent, been created by the current authorities themselves. Through their economic, social, and political policies, the authorities have successfully generated the very conditions for protest. These policies reflect a broader tendency to impose what the authorities deem suitable, in line with their vision for a “new Syria,” without regard for other values that represent the broader aspirations of Syrians. This is evident in government decisions, official statements, and the growing dominance of state-affiliated bodies over the key levers of decision-making.
Protests against the policies of the al Sharaa government initially emerged for economic reasons, particularly when Syrians took to the streets to oppose rising electricity prices. Despite the-limit-ed scale of these demonstrations, their impact on public discourse was significant. The government temporarily retreated from imposing high tariffs and suspended certain fees for a-limit-ed time. However, these protests also opened broader public debate about the need to reassess government policies and conduct comprehensive studies before implementing similar decisions.


General Discontent
Nevertheless, the authorities, operating under the principle of “those who liberate, decide”, have not learned from this experience. They continue to impose their vision unilaterally, particularly amid ongoing delays in convening the People’s Assembly and repeated violations of the constitutional declaration. Among the most recent examples is the decision by the Governor of Damascus regarding the regulation of alcohol sale and consumption. This decision sparked widespread objection, not only for its -dir-ect implications but also for its underlying intentions.
The core objection lies not only in its perceived infringement on personal freedoms, but also in its formulation, which appears to encourage social division along religious and regional lines within Syrian communities. This led activists to stage a significant protest in Bab Touma on March 22, not merely to reject the decision itself, but to oppose its nature and its authoritarian tone which signals a broader trajectory toward societal division and discrimination. The issue also triggered wider discussions about the role of authority, the-limit-s of decision-making powers, and legislative legitimacy in the absence,´-or-dys-function-, of national legislative institutions.
Numerous national issues and crises have contributed to widespread public dissatisfaction with the performance of the new authorities. This persists despite a general understanding of the difficult conditions faced by a government that inherited the remnants of a collapsed state.
However, the consistent disregard for public opinion and demands, most of which are reasonable and attainable, has gradually led a significant segment of Syrian society to conclude that the authorities are mishandling critical national files. These include transitional justice, the fate of the missing, the displaced persons’ camps, investigations into events and massacres in the coastal area and Sweida region, as well as the complex SDF file. In addition, the authorities’ performance in protecting rights and freedoms falls short of even minimal expectations.

Rising Tensions in the Street
The policies of the current authorities and their affiliated groups have been fueling public tension, rather than fostering national unity. In response to the civil unrest, pro-authority groups, including activists, media figures, religious leaders, and former fighters from the now-dissolved Operation Deterrence of Aggression factions, have escalated their rhetoric. They frequently resort to accusations of treason to confront national critical discourse, which aims to reform authority performance rather than undermine it.
These groups actively distort legitimate demands and discredit those who voice them, engaging in blind and fervent defense of the authorities and their decisions—even when those decisions are flawed´-or-violate the constitutional declaration drafted by President al Sharaa himself, as well as media codes of conduct shaped by ruling powers. They have also mobilized public demonstrations under slogans that obscure widely recognized realities.
For instance, in response to the Bab Touma protest, pro-authority groups organized a demonstration the following day in Abbasiyyin Square under the banner of “Commemorating Displacement.” Three factors indicate official backing: first, the protest initially began in the same public space (Bab Touma) before relocating to the square-;- second, the clear organization of banners and demands-;- and third, the exploitation of the event to counter protests by nearby residents of Jobar and Qaboun against the governor’s decisions.
Furthermore, the raising of “Jabhat al-Nusra” flags during the demonstration highlights one of the core points of contention in managing public space—namely, the authorities’ apparent desire to shape it according to an ideological vision of an Islamic state, in contrast to calls for a civil, democratic state.

The Discourse of Hatred
In this context, it is evident that the authorities are not only creating objective causes for protest, but are also fostering an environment conducive to hatred. This risks deepening polarization and may eventually lead to violence. Verbal aggression is already present as one manifestation of this hate speech.
The escalation is driven in part by the failure to manage public tension and discourse, whether by addressing root causes´-or-by moderating responses, particularly those originating from pro-authority groups that have sought to monopolize the national narrative of the Syrian revolution, including its values of freedom and sacrifice.
It is also clear that labeling every critic of authority performance as an adversary creates an open-ended cycle of hostility. This could lead to further restrictions on freedom of expression and the right to protest, potentially resulting in arrests´-or-threats. Authorities often portray such actions as isolated incidents, yet fail to establish mechanisms for accountability´-or-prevention.

Conclusion
Demand-driven protests are one of the key achievements of Syrians’ struggle through their revolution. They are a legitimate right and a healthy phenomenon. Authorities should not engage in mobilizing supporters to counter civil protests. Instead, listening to demands, understanding their causes, and engaging in genuine dialogue with local communities are essential steps toward building a new state capable of overcoming its profound challenges.
When Syrians return to the streets, it is as though they are sending a warning: this is not what our revolution, and our sacrifices, were for.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1