19-07-2025
Only Federalism Can Save Syria—and Perhaps the Middle East
BY; YA LIBNAN
Despite his hollow promises, Ahmed al-Sharaa has failed miserably in protecting Syria's vulnerable minorities. His brief rule has not ushered in a new era of inclusion or reconciliation, but one of betrayal and brutality. Many minorities across Syria—from Christians to Alawites, Druze to Kurds—no longer see Sharaa as a protector but as a former ISIS affiliate in a business suit.
Since unilaterally appointing himself as Syria's interim president, hundreds from these communities have been killed. Nowhere is his failure more glaring than in Sweida, where government forces dispatched to quell violence between Sunni Bedouins and the Druze ended up siding with the Bedouins. Instead of restoring order, they executed Druze civilians at gunpoint, looted homes, and set them ablaze. These actions confirm what many Syrians have long feared: Sharaa has no intention to govern for all Syrians—only to consolidate power under the guise of security.
In this climate of deep mistrust and sectarian tension, the idea of a strong, centralized government led by one faction is no longer tenable. Syria needs a new path forward—one that gives every group a stake in the country's future while ensuring local governance, autonomy, and protection. That path is federalism.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and smaller political units—such as states, provinces, or cantons. Each unit maintains a degree of autonomy to govern its own affairs, particularly in areas like education, policing, and culture, while still being part of a unified national framework.
It is a model that has proven successful in multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries. Perhaps the best example is
Switzerland
. Despite its linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity, Switzerland has remained peaceful, democratic, and united—not in spite of its differences, but because it embraced them. The Swiss Confederation consists of 26 cantons, each with its own constitution, government, and even police force. Yet all are bound together under a federal government that handles foreign policy, national defense, and major economic policies. It is a country where French, German, Italian, and Romansh speakers coexist harmoniously—not because they were forced to live under a single ruler, but because they were empowered to manage their own affairs within a shared federal system.
Syria, like Switzerland, is a patchwork of identities, religions, and histories. Trying to force all Syrians into one mold, under one ruler or one ideology, has only led to tyranny and civil war. But imagine a Syria divided into six or seven cantons—each corresponding to the main communities: Sunni Arabs, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Kurds, and possibly others based on geography and population. Each canton would have the right to govern local affairs, protect its cultural heritage, manage its own security, and elect local officials. Meanwhile, a federal government in Damascus—or a new, neutral capital—would oversee defense, foreign relations, currency, and the rule of law across cantons.
Such a system would offer each group what they crave most:
dignity, safety, and a voice
. It would neutralize the fear of domination by any one group, reduce the risk of sectarian violence, and provide a framework for peaceful coexistence. It would also promote accountability and economic development at the local level, as communities would have more control over their resources and priorities.
The case for federalism doesn't stop at Syria. Other fragile states in the Middle East—
Lebanon
and
Iraq
in particular—are equally in need of a political rethink. In both countries, sectarianism has hollowed out the state, paralyzed reform, and fueled cycles of corruption and violence. In Lebanon, the confessional power-sharing system has become a recipe for gridlock, rewarding patronage rather than competence. In Iraq, the central government in Baghdad has often clashed with Kurdish aspirations and Sunni marginalization, leading to conflict and chaos. Federalism offers a chance to rebuild these nations—not by erasing their diversity, but by institutionalizing it. By giving each community the power to govern its own affairs while remaining part of a unified state, federalism can foster both
local autonomy
and
national stability
. It's not a magic solution, but it's far better than the broken systems currently in place.
The dream of a united, inclusive Syria cannot be built on the backs of minorities who feel hunted and betrayed. It cannot rest in the hands of leaders who claim power without legitimacy. It must be rooted in a political system that protects all Syrians equally and gives each group the autonomy to thrive.
Federalism is not a partition of Syria—it is the saving of it. It is not a threat to national unity—it is the only path to genuine unity through mutual respect and self-determination. Switzerland is living proof that federalism can transform a fragmented land into a functioning, peaceful, and prosperous country.
Syria deserves the same chance. And so do Lebanon and Iraq. The time for federalism is now.
