The New Syria and the Test of State-Building on the Basis of Partnership
Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, the challenge in Syria is no longer confined to determining which faction governs Damascus; rather, it has become intrinsically tied to the nature of the new state and its capacity to formulate a national compact that accommodates its national, cultural, and political components on the basis of equality and participation in decision-making. At the core of this test, the Kurdish issue emerges as one of the decisive files in shaping Syria’s future, unity, and stability. Indeed, the success of the new state is not measured merely by the unification of institutions and the extension of its authority across Syrian territories, but by its ability to establish a fair political and constitutional relationship with the Kurdish people—one that guarantees their national, cultural, and linguistic rights, their representation in state institutions, and their participation in drafting the constitution and national decisions, alongside clear arrangements for local administration. Recognizing the Kurdish language, issuing decrees concerning rights, or appointing certain Kurdish figures to specific positions is insufficient for building a sustainable partnership unless accompanied by a genuine transformation in the state’s structure, decision-making mechanisms, and the distribution of powers. Partnership is not a grant from the authority, but a constitutional and political foundation that guarantees the participation of society’s components in managing the state and shaping its future.
Damascus faces a historic opportunity to prove that the unity of Syria does not mean imposing a single centralized model on a multi-ethnic and multicultural society, and that preserving sovereignty and territorial integrity is complementary to recognizing diversity, guaranteeing rights, and expanding the powers of local administration. If Syria succeeds in building this model, it may offer a different experience in a region where state unity has long been linked to the centralization of power and the marginalization of national demands. However, if the path remains limited to integrating institutions and ending existing forms of governance in Kurdish areas without a political and constitutional settlement that defines rights and powers by consensus, the state may succeed in unifying its authority administratively, but it will keep the causes of conflict alive.
The Kurdish People and the Right to Self-Determination Between Partnership and Independence
The Kurdish issue is one of the most prominent national issues in the Middle East, as the Kurdish people are primarily distributed among Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, with their political and legal situations varying from one state to another. Kurdish visions regarding the future differ; there are those who call for guaranteeing rights within the existing state, those who demand autonomy or a federal system, and those who view independence as a legitimate political goal. Therefore, it is incorrect to treat the Kurds as a homogeneous political bloc or to assume their agreement on a single form for the state and their relationship with central governments. Yet, the diversity of visions does not detract from the core of the issue: the right of the Kurds to enjoy their national, cultural, and political rights, to participate in managing the affairs of the states in which they live, and to freely determine their political future away from coercion and exclusion. The right to self-determination does not necessarily mean secession or the establishment of an independent state; it may be realized through a democratic, multi-ethnic state, a federal system, constitutional autonomy, or other arrangements that guarantee rights and participation based on the will of the relevant population. Conversely, the option of independence should not be dismissed simply because it conflicts with existing borders, nor should it be regarded as an inevitable outcome. It is one of the options that certain Kurdish forces might adopt if avenues for a fair settlement become blocked; however, its realization is linked to the will of the population, political and legal conditions, the positions of the concerned states, and regional and international balances. The region’s experiences show that ignoring national issues does not necessarily lead to their disappearance; rather, it may push demands from seeking to reform the relationship with the state to demanding a change in its nature or political form. Therefore, the challenge facing the region’s governments does not lie in preventing the Kurds from raising their demands, but in building states where they feel they are equal partners, and where their rights are constitutionally guaranteed rather than subject to the whim of power or shifting balances of power.
Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran: State Unity Between Security and Justice
The four states face a common strategic question: Can long-term stability be guaranteed without addressing the Kurdish issue on the basis of recognizing rights and political participation? The region’s experiences demonstrate that reducing national demands to their security dimension can lead to a cycle of confrontation, containment, rebellion, and external interventions. Security measures may impose a temporary reality, but they do not address the root causes of the crisis, nor do they make up for the absence of political representation, constitutional guarantees, and trust between the state and its citizens. Recognizing Kurdish rights does not mean that the four states must adopt a single constitutional model; each state has its own specificity, and the Kurds in each have their own circumstances and aspirations. However, sustainable solutions require recognizing identity and rights, ensuring political participation, and adopting agreed-upon arrangements for managing local affairs, thereby enabling the construction of an equal partnership that takes into account the rights and aspirations of all citizens. The paradox lies in the fact that policies adopted in the name of protecting state unity may undermine it if they are based on exclusion. The cohesion of states is measured not only by the extent of central authority control over the land, but also by citizens’ trust in its institutions and their feeling that they are partners in deciding its future. Defending borders is no substitute for addressing the causes of tension within them; political justice and the recognition of plurality enhance the state’s legitimacy and reduce internal conflicts.
State Unity Is Not Preserved by Denying Rights, but Through Partnership
The future of Syria and the Kurdish issue poses a question that extends beyond the borders of the four states: Can stable states be built without recognizing the national, cultural, and political plurality in their societies? Ignoring national demands does not eliminate them, and security approaches alone do not guarantee stability. Continued exclusion and the absence of guarantees may lead demands to shift from seeking rights and participation within the state to demanding a change in the nature of the relationship with it or its political form. At that point, opportunities for external intervention may expand, and regional and international powers may find broader scope to exploit crises and enhance their influence. Israel may benefit from divisions that weaken its rivals, and some outcomes of these transformations may intersect with broader American calculations, but this does not prove the existence of a definitive joint project to partition the region’s states. Most importantly, the future of the Kurdish people should not be reduced to the calculations of external powers, but must be discussed starting from their rights and political will.
The Kurdish issue is not an inevitable threat to the unity of states, nor does the recognition of rights necessarily mean secession. Rather, a fair settlement based on constitutional guarantees and genuine participation may be the most realistic path to reinforcing state legitimacy and protecting its unity. Either a real partnership unites us based on free choice and shared interests, or we become neighbors bound by good neighborly relations and mutual respect for the choices of peoples. The prevailing political mindset in many Middle Eastern states, built on exclusion and the denial of rights, does not preserve state unity so much as it creates the conditions for their disintegration, contributing, intentionally or unintentionally, to the success of policies aimed at partitioning them and redrawing maps in our Eastern Mediterranean.
Will the states of the region choose to address the Kurdish issue through fair settlements that renew their political compact with their peoples, or will they continue to deny rights and postpone solutions, leaving their crises open to external interventions and power struggles?
The answer to this question will determine not only the future of the Kurdish issue, but will also contribute to shaping the features of the nation-state in the Middle East: a state deriving its strength from the legitimacy of its institutions and the trust of its citizens, or an authority clinging to borders while the foundations of unity and stability erode within.
Bremen – 26.10.2026
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version… Read the Arabic version:Click here
