Introduction
Over the years prior to the fall of the former regime in Syria, Syria was de facto divided into three international zones of influence, theoretically administered on the ground by four control systems: the regime government, the Autonomous Administration, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and factions of the Syrian National Army. However, in reality, these zones were administered through seven governance models. Governance models differed even within a single zone of control, depending on the party or parties monopolizing violence and the party or parties providing services. These governance systems imposed heterogeneous administrative and service models, the reintegration of which into a unified national system will be one of the greatest challenges facing Syria in the coming period. Accordingly, this paper begins by examining the service landscape on the eve of the fall of the Assad regime to understand the magnitude of the challenges ahead and provide a preliminary information base for launching the future reconstruction process. Using data collected in the months prior to Assad’s departure, the paper presents a picture of the deteriorating state of services in various regions, a key factor in the collapse of the regime. The paper provides a database that serves as a starting point for monitoring the development of services in all Syrian regions in the future and for measuring the performance of future governments in a scientific and transparent manner.
Following the cessation of major military operations after 2020, de facto authorities in all regions have been busy institutionalizing their control over the joints of governance and public administration in their areas, in competition with the central government in Damascus. This includes providing services and establishing and consolidating their formal and informal structures for governance, administration, and security. However, the institutionalization process varies from one region to another, whether in terms of organization, the depth of institutionalization (institutional thickness), or the ability to provide services. Given that these authorities are protected in one way or another by regional and international sponsors, the paper starts from a preliminary assumption that there are seven governance models in Syria, namely: 1) The system of the former regime’s government in Damascus, and the exceptions applied in 2) Daraa, 3) Sweida, 4) the governance system applied in the areas controlled by the Interim Government, 5) the areas controlled by the Salvation Government, 6) the self-administration system, where the Kurdish community has a heavy presence, and 7) the exceptions, where the Arab community predominates, such as in Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and Manbij, where a model known as civil administration is applied. A second assumption is that the transfer of powers to the new government will face significant challenges in overcoming service disparities between regions, and that there is a legacy of experiences and expertise that must be taken into account when reforming service systems. This may require time before arriving at fair mechanisms to provide services equitably to all Syrian regions.
In addition to the challenge of reintegrating service systems, a careful analysis of the field conditions in different regions and their current capacity to accommodate the return of refugees is essential. Therefore, this paper highlights the state of services to assess the capacity and priorities for providing the necessary services for the return of displaced persons and refugees to their homes. Improving services is a necessary condition for the voluntary and dignified return of Syrian refugees to their areas, based on their objective understanding of the conditions of their areas when making their return decisions. This paper provides an overview of the state of basic services in Syria, such as health, education, food, transportation, and infrastructure, as well as an understanding of the role of service administrations in all regions of Syria and their acceptance by local communities. This study provides a descriptive reading of the service landscape to guide the ongoing debate on refugee return, early recovery, and reconstruction processes, without adopting any direct position on them. This data will be updated periodically to monitor the service situation and provide the necessary information for policymakers and Syrian families to make decisions about returning to their original places of residence in the future.
This paper is based on a survey covering all regions of the country. Data were collected using a sample as close to random as possible, distributed according to the geographical distribution of the country’s main urban centers and the district level for rural communities, taking into account population density. The process involved targeting 1,258 samples from 373 points, with a minimum of three samples from each point. Gender balance was ensured by dividing the sample equally between the sexes, and the proportion of displaced populations in the targeted areas was taken into account based on HNAP statistics. Data collection was conducted during the spring of 2024 by 46 data collectors, covering 253 of the 271 districts. Eighteen districts were inaccessible for security or logistical reasons, or were excluded due to their lack of population density.
It is important to emphasize that the survey results reflect the community’s view of the reality of services, not necessarily the actual reality of services. This means that the survey results reflect the level of satisfaction of the local community with services, not what the authorities themselves think, nor the actual reality of services. The paper is divided into two parts. The first addresses survey participants’ perceptions of the governing authorities and service providers in their areas, in terms of their ability to provide services and the degree of fairness in access to those services. It also measures the authorities’ understanding of community problems and needs. This part of the paper is useful for assessing past experiences, but it is currently only useful in understanding the administrative imbalance between regions, which will determine the extent of future challenges in returning to a unified administrative and service system across the country. The second part, meanwhile, focuses on reviewing the general state of services, in terms of indicators of availability, quality, and cost. It is important to remember that satisfaction levels vary significantly between regions and even within a single governance area. This limits the possibility of generalization and requires a degree of focus on local conditions. This part of the paper will form the knowledge base for developing a future monitoring and evaluation program and provide baseline data on the eve of the fall of the Assad regime.
