Syria, the Prospects of Sovereignty, and Preventing Hybrid Governance Models:
The Aleppo Events as a Revealing Case
Mustafa Al-Miqdad, Progress Center for Policies – Damascus
Introductory Framework:
The theoretical literature on state-building and post-conflict reconstruction consistently affirms that the monopoly over the legitimate use of force constitutes the cornerstone of sovereignty restoration and the reconstitution of state functions. The Syrian experience, however, represents a particularly complex and exceptional case, given the country’s emergence from a prolonged and multifaceted civil war that produced a wide array of armed formations with divergent references and affiliations—ranging from nationalist to ideological and, at times, sectarian—alongside varying sources of support and social constituencies.
To date, these formations have not been unified in any effective or institutionalized manner, whether in terms of organizational structure or military doctrine. This renders the question of restoring sovereignty as much a political–institutional challenge as a security one, requiring an inclusive national framework and a systematic rehabilitation of armed elements through regular military institutions and specialized academies, ultimately leading to a unified combat doctrine and a single chain of command.
In parallel, the legacy of rigid centralized governance that prevailed under the Assad regime presents an additional challenge, as reproducing that model in its previous form is no longer feasible—whether due to profound societal transformations or the post-war balance of power. Accordingly, the issue of monopolizing violence in the Syrian context cannot be approached in isolation from comprehensive political and institutional reform that balances state unity and territorial integrity with the need to avoid reviving governance patterns that have proven costly and structurally limited.
⸻
First: Sovereignty in Confrontation with Hybrid Governance
States emerging from protracted conflicts face a dual risk: the erosion of effective sovereignty in favor of de facto arrangements, and the emergence of hybrid governance models combining formal state institutions with parallel armed actors, and juxtaposing declared legal authority with informal power imposed through force.
In this context, sovereignty is not measured by international recognition or nominal territorial control, but by the state’s capacity to monopolize the use of force, unify security and legal references, and prevent the emergence of gray zones governed by temporary understandings or volatile power balances.
Recent security developments in the city of Aleppo—particularly in the neighborhoods of Ashrafiyah and Sheikh Maqsoud—constitute a practical test of this challenge and shed light on the limits of coexistence with hybrid governance models within major urban centers.
⸻
Second: Event Description – What Happened on the Ground?
According to field monitoring and cross-referenced official and media statements, the neighborhoods of Ashrafiyah and Sheikh Maqsoud in Aleppo witnessed limited armed clashes in recent days between Syrian government forces and local armed groups stationed within the two districts. The clashes were concentrated around checkpoints and demarcation points between areas of control, involved light and medium weapons, and did not extend into the interior of the neighborhoods or other parts of the city.
Despite their limited temporal and geographic scope, the significance of these confrontations transcended the immediate military dimension, revealing deeper structural issues related to weapons management within cities and the limits of informal security arrangements that have prevailed in recent years.
Most notable was not the level of escalation, but rather the accompanying political discourse—particularly statements by leaders within the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who asserted that the armed groups present in Ashrafiyah and Sheikh Maqsoud do not organizationally belong to the SDF and are not under its direct command, according to reports by local media and outlets close to the Autonomous Administration.
⸻
Third: SDF Disavowal and Its Sovereign Implications
This public disavowal represents a highly significant development from the perspective of sovereignty and law, as it effectively strips these groups of political and negotiating cover, shifting them from the category of “de facto forces linked to a recognized negotiating actor” to that of local armed groups operating outside legal frameworks.
Accordingly, the characterization of government intervention acquires a different dimension, framed as an internal security measure aimed at enforcing public order within a city under state sovereignty, rather than a confrontation with an organized political–military actor.
In this context, the discourse of disavowal does not diminish the legitimacy of intervention; on the contrary, it strengthens its legal and sovereign foundation and limits the possibility of framing the events as a symmetrical negotiating conflict or part of transitional security arrangements.
⸻
Fourth: Between “Negotiation by Fire” and the Enforcement of Public Order
Despite their security character, these developments cannot be detached from a broader pattern of conflict management in the Syrian context that may be described as “negotiation by fire,” whereby limited clashes are employed as pressure tools and signaling mechanisms in the absence of a comprehensive political settlement.
However, the specificity of the Aleppo events lies in the fact that this pattern has reached its limits, as it loses coherence when the presumed political actor denies any connection to the field instruments, automatically returning the situation to the logic of public order enforcement and state sovereignty, rather than managing deterrence balances or indirect negotiations.
⸻
Fifth: Aleppo as a Red Line in the State Equation
Aleppo occupies an exceptional position in Syria’s geopolitical landscape due to its demographic and economic weight, its symbolic role in the process of restoring state functions, and its heightened sensitivity to any duality of authority or security breakdown.
From this standpoint, normalizing any armed presence outside the framework of the state within the city becomes untenable, whether justified by transitional arrangements or local particularities. Unlike peripheral regions, Aleppo constitutes a central test case for the principle of one state and one weapon.
⸻
Sixth: The Risks of Hybrid Governance
These developments expose the structural risks inherent in hybrid governance models, including the erosion of legal legitimacy, the weakening of public trust in security institutions, the perpetuation of cycles of low-intensity violence, and the emergence of a parallel security economy that benefits from sustained fragility.
Most critically, this model does not generate sustainable stability; rather, it freezes conflict only to periodically reignite it in new forms.
⸻
Seventh: Reopening the Horizon of Sovereignty – Conditions and Limits
The available indicators suggest that rebuilding prospects for sovereignty requires decisively resolving security reference points within major cities, clearly separating legitimate political negotiation from undisciplined weaponization, and preventing cities from being used as arenas for messaging or fragile power balances.
At the same time, achieving this objective necessitates an inclusive political process that opens channels for dialogue, prevents escalation into large-scale confrontations or renewed civil war, and establishes a disciplined integration of armed actors within the framework of the state—not at its expense.
⸻
Conclusions:
• The Aleppo events demonstrate that they are not an isolated incident, but rather an indicator of a deeper struggle between the state model and the hybrid governance model. The SDF’s disavowal of the armed groups redefines the incident as an internal security matter, with significant sovereign implications.
• Simultaneously, the situation underscores the need for a balanced approach that combines the enforcement of public order with the opening of a political–institutional horizon that prevents the reproduction of violence and safeguards state unity and societal stability in the medium and long term.
