للقراءة بالعربية هنا

Three months after the collapse of the Assad regime, Syria stands at a critical crossroads. Decades of systemic repression, sectarian violence, and transgenerational trauma remain unresolved. Yet, the current government appears unprepared, or unwilling, to engage in meaningful justice processes that fully address the scale of harm. Much of the discourse in Syria today revolves around transitional justice, but it is often misunderstood as solely criminal justice mechanisms. Meanwhile, the deeper and more necessary conversation about transformational intersectional justice remains largely absent.

This article aims to clarify these two approaches, their importance in preventing further division and violence, and why securing a just future for Syria requires a trauma-informed, anti-oppressive, and collective liberation-centered approach.

What is Transitional Justice?
Transitional justice is the process societies undertake to address human rights violations following conflict or authoritarian rule. It typically includes four key pillars:

1. Criminal accountability: prosecuting perpetrators of mass crimes.
2. Truth-telling: documenting systemic violations and acknowledging their impact.
3. Reparations: providing material and symbolic redress for victims.
4. Institutional reform: restructuring oppressive institutions to prevent future violations.

In Syria, these measures are essential for holding war criminals accountable, recognising survivors’ suffering, and rebuilding institutions that serve all Syrians. However, transitional justice alone does not guarantee long-term peace, healing, or the dismantling of oppressive structures, particularly in a divided and war-torn society.

The Limits of Transitional Justice Without Deep Transformation
While transitional justice is a necessary step, it often operates within existing power structures. If not addressed holistically, it risks:

• Reinforcing elitism: Political elites may dominate courts and truth commissions, excluding marginalised communities (such as women, ethnic minorities, and refugees) from shaping justice outcomes.
• Ignoring structural violence: Assad’s crimes were not just individual acts; they were part of a deeply entrenched system of surveillance, military rule, and social control. Focusing solely on individual prosecutions neglects the root causes of oppression.
• Failing to address collective trauma: Justice must be trauma-informed, recognising the ways fear, punishment and sectarian division have been weaponised against Syrians for generations.

What is Transformational Intersectional Justice?
Transformational intersectional justice goes beyond punitive measures and state-centered reforms by:

• Centering the voices of the marginalised: Prioritising the communities most impacted by war and oppression, women, religious and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, refugees, and survivors of enforced disappearance and torture.
• Dismantling systems of oppression: Addressing the root causes of harm, authoritarianism, sectarianism, patriarchy, and militarization, and building more just structures.
• Prioritising healing and reconciliation: Recognising that justice is not just legal but also emotional, cultural, and spiritual, requiring truth-telling and community-based healing.
• Shifting from dominance to participatory power: Moving from centralised rule to community-led initiatives, decentralised political structures, and economic models based on cooperation and mutual care.

For Syria, transformational intersectional justice is not an additional option, it is a necessity to prevent recurring cycles of violence, sectarianism, and authoritarian resurgence.

Harm Repair: Learning from Other Contexts
Addressing harm in a way that is culturally sensitive and intersectional requires looking at global examples where communities have pursued justice beyond punitive measures:

• South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC): It focused on restorative justice, giving victims a voice and acknowledging systemic harm, rather than just punishing individuals. However, its shortcomings in economic reparations highlight the need for justice to go beyond symbolic measures. While limited in its ability to fully dismantle racial economic disparities, the TRC provided a space for victims and perpetrators to publicly engage in truth-telling, showing the power of visibility and acknowledgement in collective healing.
• Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: These community-based courts allowed for truth-telling and reintegration after the 1994 genocide, demonstrating the role of local justice mechanisms. Yet, they also showed the risks of justice processes that do not fully address trauma or systemic inequities.
• Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP): This model incorporates reparations, acknowledgement of harm by perpetrators, and non-retributive justice measures, centring the needs of victims over punitive outcomes.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: The genocide in Srebrenica (1995) and the ethnic cleansing campaigns against Bosniak Muslims illustrate the dangers of sectarian hatred left unaddressed. Bosnia’s post-war justice process has combined criminal trials (such as at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) with memorialisation efforts, including museums, galleries, and public remembrance sites. Keeping the scars visible, through spaces like the Srebrenica Memorial Center, has been crucial in preventing history from being erased or repeated, acknowledging survivors’ pain, and fostering collective healing. Syria must learn from Bosnia’s example and resist the temptation to bury its traumatic history under narratives of “moving forward” too quickly.
• Lebanon: Following its civil war, Lebanon adopted an amnesty law that allowed many perpetrators to escape accountability, contributing to ongoing cycles of corruption, sectarianism, and violence. The failure to engage in truth-telling and reparative justice has left wounds open, showing Syria what happens when harm is ignored rather than confronted.
• Kosovo: Following the war in Kosovo, truth-telling initiatives and transitional justice mechanisms sought to document the suffering of Kosovo Albanians and other victims. However, the failure to fully integrate psychosocial support and community-led reconciliation efforts has meant that deep divides persist. Syria must take a more holistic approach that includes both legal and community-driven healing processes.
• Indigenous Justice Systems: Many Indigenous communities worldwide use justice models based on reconciliation, collective healing, and land restoration, rather than incarceration. Syria’s justice process could benefit from localised, community-driven models that integrate cultural rituals, storytelling, and restorative healing.

Harm repair in Syria must not be dictated solely by external models, it must be co-created by Syrian survivors, community leaders, and justice practitioners to reflect the cultural, religious, and historical context of the country.

Co-Creating Healing Pathways with Syrian Communities: Centering Collective Care and Joy
For justice in Syria to be truly liberatory, it must not only address the past but also cultivate collective care and joy. Healing is not merely the absence of violence, it is the presence of safety, dignity, and cultural renewal.

To achieve this, justice efforts must:

• Engage Syrian communities in co-creation – Justice must not be imposed from above but rather shaped by survivors, grassroots organisations, and cultural practitioners.
• Support experts and practitioners in holding space – Trauma specialists, somatic healers, artists, and community facilitators must be central in creating safe spaces for collective healing and agency restoration.
• Embed cultural and ritual practices in healing – Music, storytelling, dance, and food traditions should serve as tools for reconnection and community repair.
• Ensure state and institutional support – The current government must move from neglect to actively facilitating and funding community-driven justice initiatives through legal backing, financial resources, and sustainable infrastructure.

How Can We Achieve Justice That Heals?
To prevent Syria from sliding into renewed violence, urgent and long-term steps must be taken:

1. Expand the definition of justice: Challenge the perception that justice is solely about criminal prosecutions.
2. Establish community-led truth-telling and documentation initiatives: Syrian-led truth commissions should be formed to document atrocities and honour victims.
3. Invest in collective healing: Culturally rooted and trauma-informed practices must be embedded in justice efforts.
4. Support local Syrian initiatives: Women’s leadership and grassroots civil society organisations must be prioritised and funded.
5. Reject any return to authoritarianism: Justice must reflect a democratic model, not recreate past forms of oppression.

A Future Rooted in Collective Liberation
Achieving justice in Syria is not just about trials, it is about transformation. Without an intersectional and anti-oppressive framework, transitional justice will fail to prevent future violence. By learning from past conflicts, embedding collective care, and ensuring visibility for historical scars, Syria has an opportunity to break the cycle and build a future based on truth, accountability, and shared healing.