Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and his disgraceful escape to Moscow in December 2024, Syria finds itself at a critical crossroads, shaped not only by geopolitics but also by local communities that have long been marginalized.
For more than a decade, Syrians experienced multifaceted wars: between the regime and the opposition, between centers of influence and areas of marginalization, and between external forces and internal demands.
Now, with the head of the regime having fallen, only those who have outlived remain at the forefront: the people.
Peacebuilding efforts in Syria have long been centered around formal negotiating tables and under the umbrella of international initiatives, with major agreements forged far removed from the realities of the people and often in isolation from the communities who have paid the greatest price for the conflict.
But all these attempts have proven limited and, in many cases, unsuccessful, as they have ignored the voices of local communities who experience the conflict daily and pay its economic, social, and human costs.
The Failure of Peace from the “Top effective layers” and the Rise of Local Communities
In a country where the state has been broken, authorities have been divided, and the social fabric has been torn apart, local communities have become not just victims of the conflict, but crucial actors who cannot be ignored.
True social reconciliation is not imposed from above, nor is it engineered by international experts in capitals’ hotels. Rather, it begins with the people themselves, with the neighborhoods, with the families that have been scattered, with the neighborhoods people that have been displaced.
The historical marginalization of these communities, whether by the regime before or by external actors after, did not prevent them from playing a central role in rebuilding ties between individuals and groups.
We clearly see that local peace committees have become a community-based reference for managing conflicts, preventing escalation, and protecting civilians in the absence of law.
The Syrian experience has demonstrated that peacebuilding cannot be effective if it is limited to political and international elites. According to a study published by the University of Exeter, most peace agreements reached without the participation of local communities were short-lived because they did not address the root causes of the conflict, such as economic injustice and social discrimination, and often lacked the necessary legitimacy in the eyes of the affected communities.
After the fall of the regime, a historic opportunity emerged to empower local communities as architects of peace. Local initiatives in areas liberated from the control of the regime or armed groups began working to:
- Establish reconciliation committees to resolve disputes between families and conflicting groups, based on local customs and traditions.
- Rehabilitating destroyed infrastructure through volunteer efforts reflects a spirit of solidarity and self-reliance.
- Promoting dialogue between different social components, including different ethnic and religious components, to repair the torn social fabric.
The Role of “Local Peace Committees” in Syria’s Recovery
Local communities possess their own tools for understanding the complexities of conflict and seeking to address them. They also possess a legitimacy that elite or external actors cannot achieve. This legitimacy stems from shared experience, shared pain, and the urgent need to rebuild lives.
Involving these communities in reconciliation efforts means not only consulting them, but also empowering them to actually lead initiatives that address their realities, whether through neighborhood committees, civil society organizations, or youth initiatives.
According to a report by the Institute for Peaceful Change, local initiatives have succeeded in achieving community reconciliation in areas such as Dar’aa and Idlib, where these committees have played a vital role in:
- Rebuilding trust: Through direct dialogue sessions between victims and perpetrators, allowing both parties to tell their stories and understand each other.
- Preventing Retaliation: Through simple transitional justice mechanisms that focus on redressing harm and rehabilitating perpetrators, rather than harsh punishment.
- Reintegration and Rehabilitation: Facilitating the return of displaced persons and migrants to their original villages and neighborhoods, ensuring their safety and dignity.
A prominent example is the neighborhood committees in Damascus and its countryside, which acted as mediators between residents and local authorities, contributing to the resolution of property disputes and the reopening of schools and health centers. This reflects the ability of these committees to address daily life issues that directly impact community stability. These committees were not merely executive tools; they were genuine spaces for dialogue and joint decision-making.
Peace is not a document… but a life process
Peace, in essence, is not an agreement to be signed, but a long process that requires the involvement of all those who have been harmed, damaged others, and affected.
It begins with recognizing people’s collective memory, with its tragedies, nostalgia, and injustices, and continues to address the root causes of conflict: poverty, marginalization, and the absence of justice.
Local communities not only know the details of their lives better, but they also have unique tools for understanding the complexities of conflict.
Local communities not only know the details of their lives best, but they also possess unique tools for understanding the complexities of conflict. This deep understanding stems from experience, from knowing the people, and from unraveling the complex social networks that international initiatives and organizations’ reports fail to capture.
These communities possess a legitimacy that negotiators cannot carry, no matter how high their positions or how much support they receive from major capitals. A legitimacy derived from the land, from a shared history, and from bonds forged over decades, only to be shattered in the blink of an eye. This legitimacy is what gives local peace agreements their weight and acceptance among the people.
“Mobaderoon”: A live experience in repositioning societies
In this context, Mobaderoon society emerged as a tangible example of communities’ ability to transform from inactivity to action. This organization worked to form local committees in a number of Syrian regions, with the aim of activating the role of residents in the reconciliation process. These committees were not only neutral mediators, but also points of convergence between neighbors, carrying messages of peace, and striving to restore trust in the neighborhood and facilitate community dialogue between components that had suffered from estrangement and fragmentation.
The society also supported small restoration initiatives, such as rehabilitating public meeting places or organizing events that commemorate our shared past, without denying the wounds.This revived a societal memory that had been forgotten, and placed people once again at the heart of the process, not on its margins.
“Mobaderoon” has shown that working from the bottom up is the only way to achieve a lasting and stable peace, built on the foundations of trust and mutual understanding.
These committees were not only a mediator between the people and the official authorities, but were also a catalyst for collective action and a voice carrying the people’s demands and aspirations for peace and stability.
Social peace… a daily and not seasonal work
The biggest mistake most peacebuilding initiatives make is viewing the process as an “event,” rather than a process. Resources are often poured into a specific moment, and the community is then left to complete the process on its own, leaving the results vulnerable to regression.
True peace, however, is an ongoing process that requires constant presence and a local leadership that knows how to feel the pulse of the people and detect subtle shifts in the public mood before the situation escalates into another explosion.
So, local peace committees are not an alternative to political solutions, but rather the solid foundation upon which such solutions are built.
And if communities themselves were not part of peace, then they will not be part of its sustainability.
The sustainability of peace is closely linked to the ability of societies to resolve their conflicts themselves and adapt their mechanisms to deal with emerging challenges.
Peace Architects…not diplomats, but neighbors
It is obvious that many of the real peacemakers neither studied international relations nor wore tuxedos. They are the neighborhood youth, a former teacher, a field doctor, or even a baker who knows his customers by name. These are the ones who hold the keys to trust and have the courage to talk to everyone, no matter how deep the divisions. They are the ones who can counter rumors, address tensions, and calm spirits, because they know the people and are known among them. If a precise term is necessary, these “peacemakers” are truly the backbone of any true reconciliation.
Reclaiming local communities’ role in peacebuilding is not just a theoretical idea, but a strategic necessity. The accumulated lessons, from Syria to Rwanda, from Iraq to Colombia, confirm one truth: there is no peace without people. There is no reconciliation without memory. There is no stability without social justice rooted in the land.
This shift from marginalization to effectiveness is, in essence, a shift in our understanding of peace itself. It is not a fragile, superficial peace, but rather an organic, daily peace that engages with the details and is nourished by mutual trust and the voice of the people, not the echo of boring voices of politicians.
The sustainability of peace in Syria, or in any post-conflict context, depends largely on the ability of these communities to regain control and become the primary guardians and stewards of their own future.
So are we ready to give them that chance?
