New York – July 24, 2025
By, Issam Khoury
The announcement of Syria’s new visual identity has sparked widespread debate over the legality and political implications of the decision. While the project is being promoted as a step toward modernizing the image of the state and unifying its symbols, many observers argue that the transitional government is not legally or constitutionally authorized to change the emblem of the Syrian state, since it did not come through elections that would grant it the authority to make such a symbolic and far-reaching decision.
The Limits of a Transitional Government’s Mandate
By nature, a transitional government is tasked with managing the interim period and ensuring stability until general elections are held and power is transferred to elected institutions. From this perspective, moving to redesign the country’s visual identity raises constitutional questions about exceeding the boundaries of its temporary mandate.
The Absent Role of Parliament
It would have been more appropriate for the visual identity project to be referred to Parliament once elected, to be studied by a specialized committee responsible for national symbols, and debated transparently in a way that reflects Syria’s diversity. Instead, the decision was issued directly by the Office of the Presidency of the Transitional Government, which many critics see as an imposed, top-down measure rather than a consensual choice rooted in popular will.
Writer and novelist Issam Khoury suggests that the unveiling of the new visual identity at this stage could be treated as a practical tool for organizing state affairs during the transitional period, but it should be recognized only as a temporary measure. Khoury proposes that the matter be revisited after the next elections, when a newly elected Parliament can address it through a specialized committee and determine whether the new emblem genuinely represents the Syrian state or requires modification or replacement.
Transitional Symbol or State Identity?
Confusing what is transitional with what should be permanent and constitutional risks complicating Syria’s political scene at a moment when clarity and respect for legal frameworks are crucial. A visual identity is not simply a marketing slogan—it is a sovereign symbol that embodies the social contract between state and society. This makes the decision particularly sensitive and heavy with long-term implications.
The adoption of a new visual identity by the transitional government is legally and politically ambiguous. The most balanced approach, as Khoury notes, is to use the emblem as an organizational tool for the interim phase, while reserving its permanent status for a proper constitutional framework once Syria enters a mature stage of statehood under elected institutions.
About the Author
