For the first time since the dramatic ouster of longtime strongman Bashar al-Assad, Syria is set to hold parliamentary elections under the stewardship of interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The polls, scheduled for Sunday, October 5, 2025, have been heralded by some as a potential turning point—a chance, perhaps, for a nation battered by decades of autocratic rule to chart a new political course. Yet, as the day approaches, skepticism abounds both at home and abroad about whether these elections truly mark a break from the past or simply echo old patterns with a new face at the helm.
According to the Associated Press, the upcoming vote marks the first parliamentary contest since Bashar al-Assad’s regime was overthrown, ending the Assad family’s 50-year grip on Syrian politics. During that era, elections were a familiar ritual, but their outcomes were never in doubt. The Baath Party, which dominated every facet of political life, ensured that parliament remained a rubber stamp for the ruling family. International observers, as well as many Syrians, saw these votes as little more than pageantry—ceremonial exercises with no real competition or unpredictability.
Now, with Assad gone and the old guard swept aside, there is a sense of anticipation mingled with deep uncertainty. The interim government, led by al-Sharaa, has dissolved the Baath Party’s ironclad structures. Candidates in this new era are no longer running on party lists but as individuals, a change that, on paper, suggests a move toward pluralism. But as Devdiscourse points out, “genuine democratic procedures remain elusive.”
So, what’s actually different this time around? For starters, the mechanics of the election have changed. Citizens will cast their votes directly for their preferred candidates, a departure from the past when the Baath Party’s lists were all but guaranteed victory. However, this newfound directness comes with significant caveats. A substantial portion of parliamentary seats—though not precisely enumerated—will be filled through regional electoral colleges, rather than by popular vote. Perhaps more strikingly, about one-third of the seats in the new parliament will be appointed directly by President al-Sharaa himself.
Such arrangements have raised eyebrows among analysts and ordinary Syrians alike. While the elections are being trumpeted by the interim authorities as a “potential new political phase” for Syria, there is widespread agreement that the process remains “far from being free and fair,” as the Associated Press bluntly notes. The system’s design, critics argue, all but guarantees that the president and his allies will retain substantial control over the legislative process—hardly a clean break from the past.
Compounding these concerns are the numerous logistical and political challenges facing the election. Syria remains a country deeply scarred by years of conflict, and significant regions are still mired in violence or under the control of factions that do not recognize the central government’s authority. As a result, elections will not be held in all parts of the country. This, in turn, calls into question the representativeness of the new parliament and the inclusivity of the process.
Inclusivity—or the lack thereof—is a theme that looms large over these elections. As Devdiscourse reports, the vote serves as a test of the interim government’s commitment to political renewal, particularly when it comes to women and minorities. Under the Assad dynasty, minority groups and women were often given token representation to project an image of diversity, but real power remained tightly concentrated. Today’s interim authorities face pressure to do better, but with minority representation “in flux” and many seats left unfilled due to ongoing regional instability, it’s unclear whether meaningful progress will be made.
For many Syrians, the shift to individual candidacies—rather than party lists—offers a glimmer of hope. In theory, this could open the door for new voices and perspectives to enter the political arena. But with the interim government retaining significant appointment powers and regional conflicts preventing elections in some areas, the reality is far more complicated. As one observer put it, “the elections are marred by political complexities and regional discord, questioning the transition's credibility.”
The international community is watching closely. After decades of watching the Assad family stage-manage elections to maintain their grip on power, foreign governments and human rights organizations are wary of taking the interim government’s promises at face value. Many have called for robust independent monitoring of the vote, though it remains unclear to what extent such oversight will be permitted—or effective—given the country’s fractured landscape.
At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental question: Can Syria, after half a century of authoritarian rule, truly build a more inclusive and representative political system? Or will these elections simply reinforce old habits under a new administration? For now, the answer is far from clear. As Devdiscourse succinctly puts it, “the elections test Syria’s commitment to political inclusivity, especially for women and minorities.”
Amid all the uncertainties, one thing is certain: the stakes are high. The outcome of these elections—however imperfect—will shape not only the composition of Syria’s next parliament but also the trajectory of its fragile transition. For ordinary Syrians, weary of war and longing for stability, the hope is that this vote might at least plant the seeds of a more open and accountable political culture, even if the road ahead remains long and winding.
Still, the obstacles are formidable. The legacy of the Assad family’s rule casts a long shadow, and the interim government’s own actions have not always inspired confidence. With a significant portion of seats reserved for presidential appointees and voting barred in conflict zones, the risk is that the elections will simply entrench new elites while excluding large swaths of the population from meaningful participation.
Yet, for all the skepticism, there is also a sense—however tentative—that change, however incremental, may finally be underway. The dissolution of the old political structures and the move toward individual candidacies, while imperfect, represent a step away from the rigidities of the past. Whether these changes amount to genuine progress or simply window dressing remains to be seen.
As Syrians prepare to head to the polls on October 5, the world will be watching. Will this be the moment Syria begins to turn the page on its authoritarian past? Or will the promise of renewal give way to disappointment and disillusionment once more? The answer, for now, hangs in the balance.
