This paper offers a critical assessment of the Draft Syrian Civil Service Law announced by the Ministry of Administrative Development in late 2025, situating it within Syria’s broader transitional context and the unresolved questions surrounding the identity, role, and responsibilities of the post-conflict state. It argues that civil service reform cannot be treated as a purely technical or administrative exercise detached from wider political, economic, and social choices. In the absence of a clear and shared social contract defining the state’s regulatory and service functions, any attempt to overhaul public employment risks producing fragmented and incoherent legislation.

Drawing on Syria’s historical experience, the paper shows how public service has long functioned not only as a service delivery mechanism, but also as a cornerstone of social protection, employment absorption, and middle-class formation. While this role was distorted under the former regime through politicization, favoritism, and corruption, it nevertheless cushioned structural weaknesses in the labor market and private sector. The draft law, however, diagnoses public sector dysfunction primarily through the lens of redundant staffing and inefficiency, responding with contractual and managerial tools that address symptoms rather than underlying causes such as demographic pressures, economic misalignment, and the legacy of politicized governance .

A central concern raised is the proposed shift toward a fully contractual, open public employment model. The paper argues that introducing such a model in the absence of a functioning labor market, robust social protection systems, and economic stability is premature and potentially destabilizing. Rather than enhancing efficiency, it could undermine social stability and administrative continuity at a moment when institutional memory is essential for recovery and reconstruction.

The review also highlights procedural and legitimacy gaps in the drafting process itself, notably the exclusion of key stakeholders such as public employee representatives, trade unions, and social insurance institutions. This exclusion weakens both the social legitimacy of the law and its feasibility in practice. Ultimately, the paper concludes that meaningful civil service reform must follow—not precede—an inclusive national dialogue on the nature of the state, with legislation serving as a translation of consensus rather than a substitute for it. Finally, the paper provides in its annex a detailed analysis of the proposed text to suggest specific improvements.