One year after the Syrian National Dialogue Conference, this paper revisits the substance of its economic track outputs at a moment marked by major shifts, most notably the lifting of sanctions, yet also by a persistent lack of transparency. Despite the Dialogue having been framed as a cornerstone of the transition, its outputs remain unpublished, widening the gap between participatory debate and the economic policies communicated to the public. The paper seeks to keep that discussion alive by reconstructing the logic, priorities, and trade-offs articulated during the sessions, based on the author’s direct participation and contemporaneous documentation 

Participants largely converged on a diagnosis of Syria’s economic crisis as structural and governance-related rather than merely resource or sanctions-driven. Long-standing policy incoherence, rent-seeking incentives, monopolization of decision-making, and pervasive corrupt bureaucracy were identified as core drivers of economic fragility. These structural distortions were compounded by a deep crisis of trust—between state and society, center and regions, as well as official discourse and lived realities—rendering technical fixes insufficient in the absence of institutional reform and accountability.

Building on this diagnosis, the National Dialogue’s economic track outlined a conditional transition toward a more open and competitive economy. This transition was framed as gradual and regulated, rejecting both shock therapy and a return to a dominant, interventionist state. The state’s role was redefined as that of a neutral regulator and guarantor of fair competition, social justice, and institutional stability, rather than a market competitor. Social protection, regional equity, and participation in policy formulation were treated as prerequisites for sustainable reform, not as downstream outcomes.

Recovery priorities were firmly anchored in production rather than rent extraction. Industry, agriculture, productive infrastructure, trade that enables local production, and human capital development were identified as pillars of recovery, alongside careful stewardship of public assets. At the same time, the National Dialogue openly acknowledged unresolved disagreements—on the pace of liberalization, the future of the public sector, monetary tools, and market openness—treating these tensions as evidence of pluralism rather than failure.

Ultimately, the paper argues that the dialogue’s value lies as much in clarifying disagreements as in identifying consensus. Publishing the full minutes is presented as essential to transform the National Dialogue from a closed event into a transparent, accountable, and ongoing good economic governance process.