The governance of Syria’s cities cannot be understood simply as a choice between centralisation and decentralisation. It reflects a deeper historical tension between central authorities seeking to preserve territorial control and local communities seeking greater influence over the places in which they live.

In the second episode of Urban Liwan | ليوان عمراني, LUGARIT co-founder Omar Abdulaziz Hallaj joins architect and urbanist Massa Al Moselly to trace the evolution of municipal governance in Syria, from the late Ottoman period to the present transition. Their discussion shows that Syrian municipalities did not emerge organically from autonomous urban communities. Rather, they developed largely as instruments through which successive central authorities incorporated local elites, administered territory and contained the political and economic power of major cities.

This legacy continued after independence and was consolidated under the Baath regime. Although Legislative Decree 107 of 2011 introduced a more ambitious conception of local administration—recognising local communities as legal entities and envisaging the transfer of responsibilities and resources—much of its decentralisation framework was never implemented. During the conflict, different governance systems emerged across Syria, leaving fragmented institutional practices, depleted municipal capacities and unresolved questions of local representation.

The episode examines the difficult choices facing Syria today. Elections alone cannot restore local legitimacy while millions remain displaced, civil registries are incomplete and many municipalities lack staff, records, buildings and resources. Temporary administrative arrangements may be necessary to maintain essential services, but they must not become a pathway back to entrenched centralisation.

The conversation also connects governance to the political economy of land, property and reconstruction. Projects such as Marota City are presented not merely as planning interventions, but as instruments for redistributing land value, political influence and economic opportunity. Without an integrated vision, reconstruction risks creating a rent-based system in which land becomes a means of rewarding competing interests. To avoid the trajectory of many post-conflict patrimonial states, Syria must prioritise productive and sustainable uses of land over real estate speculation.

The episode ultimately argues for multilevel governance: capable local institutions with meaningful authority, supported by a central state that coordinates policy and safeguards displaced people’s rights, women’s property and inheritance rights, the environment and cultural heritage. Rebuilding this relationship between national institutions and local communities should be central to the new social contract Syria needs during its transition.