"We need to make use of Syria's transitional phase"

Qantara: Mr. Hajo, what are the chances of democracy in Syria at the moment?

Siamend Hajo: In principle, we should welcome the fact that Assad's brutal reign of terror has come to an end. But in light of the radical Islamic background of the new rulers, I have little hope. So far, they have been very moderate, the question is whether this is just the beginning. After the Iranian revolution, the situation was not dissimilar. The revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini initially appeared very liberal, working with the communists and the Kurds. As soon as his power was established, he built a regime of terror.

You are on the board of the European Centre for Kurdish Studies (EZKS) in Berlin. Since 2016, you have been supporting Syrian civil society in drafting a new constitution through the "Power Sharing for a United Syria" project. What did this work involve?

We organised regular workshops in which experts met with representatives of the Syrian opposition and civil society. A Syrian constitutional committee, convened under UN Resolution 2254, has existed in Geneva since 2015. The resolution called for a new Syrian constitution and an interim government, legitimised by elections under UN auspices. We were able to contribute to this process and were on hand as advisors.

The committee included representatives from the Syrian government, the opposition and civil society. We worked with the latter two groups on basic principles for a decentralised constitution, covering topics such as the protection of minorities, federalism, the separation of powers, and local democracy.

The Assad government boycotted these processes and the UN had no mechanism to penalise them. At the time, Russia, Iran and Turkey were also involved in the UN processes due to their proximity to the Assad regime and opposition groups respectively. The now-ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), on the other hand, was not represented.

Assuming that there will be a constitutional process, as Ahmad al-Sharaa announced in an interview with Al Arabiya at the end of December, how can your work be implemented now?

As al-Sharaa (formerly known as al-Jolani) mentioned, Syria now needs a committee to draft a new constitution. We at the EZKS, alongside members of the Syrian opposition and civil society, have not only drafted a constitution for Syria but also a regional constitution for a potential Kurdish region. Both documents can now serve as a basis for discussion.

Apparently, there is a demand for these documents. Last week, a representative of the Kurdish National Council called me and asked me to send him documents that we had jointly developed in Geneva in 2016. They contain answers to questions such as "What is federalism?" and "What does the National Council define federalism?"

Why is a decentralised government in Syria important to you?

Syria's new rulers are clearly pushing for a centrally governed Syria and, in my opinion, that is a problem. That would mean that power is centralised in Damascus and no decisions are taken at the regional and local levels.

My demand for Syrian democracy is that decision-making authority is transferred to the local level as much as possible. Local people know are better equipped than a central authority in Damascus to decide on, for example, where a school is needed. A centrally governed country is also more susceptible to corruption and less able to respond to people's individual needs.

How do you rate the UN's policy since the regime's fall on December 8th?

I think it is problematic. A group classified as terrorists by the UN comes to power and the UN's first response is to rush to them—practically falling to its knees before them.

This sends the wrong signal to the Syrian people, but also as a general principle. It implies that an organisation can be a terrorist group, it can violate human rights and persecute people, but as soon as it comes to power, all is forgotten. It legitimises terror. The UN and Europe are losing credibility with their current policy.

What should the UN do instead?

After Assad's overthrow, they should have kept their distance. The US had a bounty of 10 million USD on al-Sharaa until 21 December 2024. HTS is still on the UN terror list today. But Geir O. Pedersen, the UN special envoy for Syria, met with al-Sharaa on 15 December and had his photo taken with him. The women's delegation accompanying him made the effort to wear headscarves.

Of course, international organisations want to influence HTS and communicate their own expectations now. But the UN should clearly signal that the new rulers are under observation and that there will be no diplomatic contacts or official meetings if democratic structures are not established now.

How do you rate Germany's policy towards the new rulers in Syria?

Germany has pledged €60 million, which, as things stand, will not be given to state institutions. Instead, €25 million will go to the UN Children's Fund Unicef, for example, and €19 million to the United Nations Development Programme, with the rest going to smaller, local organisations. I very much welcome this. If state institutions are to be financed, it should only be on the premise that the money is used to build a modern state apparatus and not Islamist structures.

The comments made by Ms Baerbock after her visit to Damascus on 3 January that minorities, including the Kurds, should be protected and politically integrated are also very welcome. The current government in Syria must know that funds for reconstruction will only flow if it adheres to values ​​such as human rights, gender equality and the protection of minorities.

What role can Germany play in the reconstruction process beyond financial support?

Germany can assist in the fields of reconciliation and coming to terms with the past, drawing on its own experience of critically engaging with history. The first step would be to secure and archive documents from the old regime. Many documents from Syrian archives and intelligence agencies were destroyed after 8 December or were lost in the chaos.

Secondly, Syria needs to have a conversation about what should be made accessible and to whom. After all, this is sensitive information. The Germans grappled with this question intensively after the Nazi and SED regimes and have gained experience in how to handle these documents responsibly.

In Germany's "Gauck authority", the archive for Stasi documents, many of the victims' names have been blacked out for privacy reasons. The names of the Stasi informants, on the other hand, are visible. My suggestion would be to set up an institution in Damascus modelled on the Gauck authority.

How has the EZKS reacted to the fall of Assad? What are your current plans?

We have resumed our work in Damascus; some of my colleagues and I were there last week to get an overview. We plan to set up a centre for democracy, called the "Centre for Democratic Education", for which we have applied for funding from the German Foreign Office. 

At this centre, we want to make public the constitutional principles we have developed, our teaching materials and the experiences we have gained during the decades in exile. We would also offer our dialogue workshops with Syrian and foreign experts in Damascus.

For example, we would like to run a workshop with students on how to build a democratic university and what opportunities students have to participate. We would do the same for schools or democratic trade unions. The aim would be to discuss how "democracy from below" works and how decisions can be made at the local level.

Can this work also support the process of coming to terms with the crimes of the Assad regime?

Yes, using the same principle. There are many experts in Germany who are very familiar with how to store documents and how to create spaces for a culture of remembrance. We could invite them to share their know-how with those in power in Syria. We can also support the Syrian administration or ministries in this area.

The EZKS and many other Syrian exile organisations have resumed their activities in Syria with remarkable speed. Is there a sense of "now or never"?

We are in a transitional phase, much is still possible. We need to make use of this phase. We don't know what will happen in five or six months. If new authoritarian structures are established, it may be more difficult to retrospectively ban the work that has been done by then. 

We must also keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of people are still missing. We could probably learn about the fate of many of these people from intelligence agency documents. Their relatives have a right to know why someone was arrested, who was tortured and where they were held in prison. There is a real danger that this evidence will disappear, so we must act quickly.