In the Syrian capital Damascus, anticipation was running high on Wednesday. Ahmed al-Shara, who led the overthrow of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad, was expected to address the public for the first time since his rebel coalition seized power almost two months ago.
But the speech never came. Instead, a series of critically important decisions were announced in spurts on the state news agency: The coalition headed by Mr. al-Shara declared him president for a transitional period, nullified the Constitution and dissolved the legislature and army that were formed under the ousted dictatorship.
While some Syrians celebrated the announcements, others were wary about the way the decisions were made and Mr. al-Shara’s decision not to speak directly to the Syrian people.
The declarations placed control over the formation of a new state firmly in Mr. al-Shara’s hands for the foreseeable future. His coalition did not say how long this transitional period would last and it was not immediately clear whether his appointment had broad support across a diverse range of factions outside of his coalition.
“It’s a very centralized, authoritarian, top down approach,” said Dr. Salam Said, a Syrian researcher and former lecturer at the Free University of Berlin. “Progressive Syrians and others are really worried about their role and their participation in this new state,” she added. “They feel left behind in all of these decisions.” “They say temporary president, transitional period. But how long is this period?”
In recent weeks, Mr. al-Shara has faced criticism for failing to make a single speech addressing the Syrian public since his coalition took power in early December. During that time, however, the new leadership publicized a flurry of meetings between Mr. al-Shara and visiting foreign diplomats.
The way in which the leadership announced crucial decisions on Wednesday — during a private meeting with several other rebel groups in the presidential palace — also drew criticism. Notably absent from the meeting were some Druse militias that effectively control much of southwestern Syria and the Kurdish militia that controls the northeast.
The coalition did not publish any information about which factions were present at the meeting or the process through which they appointed Mr. al-Shara, leaving uncertainty over whether there was a unified front behind these steps.
In the weeks after his rebel coalition swept into the capital, Damascus, Mr. al-Shara and his allies spoke of a sweeping vision for Syria’s new state. Leaders from across society — including activists, intellectuals and opposition figures — would be invited to help build a caretaker government. An inclusive committee would draw up a new Constitution. Elections would be held. Free speech would rein.
That rhetoric was welcomed by many in Syria, a country ruled with an iron fist by the Assad family for more than 50 years. But over time, the euphoria has begun to fizzle.
“They are now deriving their legitimacy from militarily liberating the country,” said Alise Mofrej, a member of the Syrian Negotiation Commission, an umbrella organization for Syrian opposition groups. But Mr. al-Shara needs to assure the Syrian people that he will not establish “a new tyranny,” she added.
A spokesman for the interim government’s military operations, Col. Hassan Abdul Ghani, also announced on Wednesday that all Syrian militias would be dissolved and integrated into the state. But it was unclear how rebel factions that were not present and have so far refused to give up their arms would respond to that mandate.
Some militias had previously refused to disband and integrate their fighters into a new national army until they had more clarity on the form the caretaker government would take.
In Damascus, some slammed the declarations on Wednesday as a missed opportunity for Mr. al-Shara to engender trust between his coalition and the Syrian public by explaining his vision for the country during the transitional period or providing more clarity on the role of his caretaker government.
“While it was expected for him to be announced as transitional president, the way it was done — and the way that some political actors were excluded — cost him some political capital,” said Ibrahim al-Assil, a Syrian adjunct professor of political science at George Washington University who returned to Damascus after the fall of the Assad government.
“I don’t think that was a game changer,” he added. “But it was a step that has people worried about what will come next.”
Reham Mourshed contributed reporting.
