In the shifting realities of post-Assad Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa previously known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has emerged as one of the country’s most consequential figures.
Once the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, al-Sharaa now presents himself as a pragmatic statesman capable of guiding Syria out of chaos. His transformation — from jihadist commander to de facto ruler of Damascus — has captured international attention, but it also raises profound questions.
Can a leader with such a contentious past truly deliver justice and reconciliation? Or is al-Jolani’s rebrand merely a façade, perpetuating the wounds of a nation scarred by conflict?
Recent protests highlight these dilemmas. Demonstrators not only called for justice for victims of Syria’s civil war but also voiced frustration with al-Sharaa's authority and the continued detentions under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
These protests underscore a critical issue: transitional justice. Without accountability for the crimes of the past, Syria risks repeating the cycles of division and violence that have defined its recent history.
Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rise to power is a story of remarkable adaptability. As the head of Jabhat al-Nusra, he once operated with the ideological rigidity of a jihadist leader, aligning with Al-Qaeda’s global vision.
But as the Syrian conflict evolved, he made a calculated decision to break ties with Al-Qaeda in 2016, rebranding his group. This move distanced him from the transnational jihadist agenda, aligning HTS more closely with Syrian nationalist goals.
The rebranding went beyond rhetoric. Under al-Sharaa’s leadership, HTS transitioned from a militant faction to a governing force in Idlib, establishing the Syrian Salvation Government to administer the region.
Building on this foundation, al-Sharaa led HTS into Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and finally Damascus, where he now resides following the fall of the Assad regime.
As his influence expanded so did his efforts to reshape his image. Ahmed al-Sharaa began appearing in public more frequently, shedding his military fatigues for civilian attire and even donning a tie on occasion. These symbolic gestures signalled his attempt to present himself as a pragmatic leader focused on governance and stability, distancing himself from his militant past.
Why Ahmed al-Sharaa's rebrand deserves scepticism
Despite Ahmed al-Sharaa’s efforts to portray himself as a statesman, his transformation from militant commander to political leader raises significant concerns.
His role in Syria’s bloody conflict remains a considerable barrier to trust. For many Syrians, his rebranding appears less as a genuine ideological shift and more as a tactical manoeuvre to consolidate power.
This perception casts doubt on his ability — or willingness —to pursue national reconciliation and address the deep divisions that have scarred Syria.
Ahmed al-Sharaa’s governance has also been marred by authoritarian practices. Reports of ongoing detentions and human rights abuses in areas controlled by HTS undermine his claims of prioritising justice and governance.
These actions mirror the tactics of the Assad regime, raising questions about whether al-Sharaa’s leadership represents meaningful change or simply a continuation of authoritarian rule under a different guise.
Subscribe Now and Listen to our Podcasts OnAdditionally, Sharaa’s dependency on Turkish support further complicates his claims of sovereignty.
While Ankara’s backing has been crucial to HTS’s survival and expansion, critics argue that this reliance highlights al-Sharaa’s vulnerability and undermines his narrative of independence.
Perhaps most troubling is al-Sharaa’s failure to address the critical issue of transitional justice.
Syrians are demanding accountability for the crimes committed during the civil war, but al-Sharaa has offered no clear plan for addressing these grievances.
This omission risks alienating Syrians who see justice as a prerequisite for stability and reconciliation.
The transitional justice dilemma
For all his talk of governance, al-Sharaa has yet to address one of Syria’s most critical needs: transitional justice. The wounds of the Syrian civil war run deep.
Thousands remain missing or detained, communities have been devastated by massacres, and the scars of sectarian violence continue to divide the nation. Ahmed al-Sharaa’s failure to confront these grievances risks undermining his rebranding efforts and alienating the very people he seeks to lead.
Transitional justice is not just a moral imperative but a practical necessity for building a stable and inclusive society. History offers clear lessons in this regard.
In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission played a pivotal role in helping the country move past the atrocities of apartheid by fostering a sense of accountability and closure.
Similarly, in Rwanda, mechanisms of transitional justice, including community-based Gacaca courts, were instrumental in addressing the grievances of the 1994 genocide, allowing survivors and perpetrators to coexist.
By contrast, Lebanon serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when transitional justice is neglected.
Decades after the end of its civil war, the country remains deeply divided, with unresolved grievances perpetuating cycles of mistrust and sectarianism.
The lack of accountability for war crimes committed during the conflict has left a legacy of impunity, preventing Lebanon from achieving genuine reconciliation.
For Syria, the stakes are even higher. Without addressing the crimes of the Assad regime, as well as the abuses committed under HTS and other factions, the country risks entrenching divisions that could fuel future conflicts.
Transitional justice is not just about punishing perpetrators; it is about acknowledging the pain of victims, rebuilding trust, and laying the foundation for a shared future.
Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rise offers a glimpse of what leadership could look like in post-Assad Syria, but it also underscores the dangers of legitimising power without accountability.
Transitional justice must be at the centre of Syria’s recovery. This means creating mechanisms to address grievances, hold perpetrators accountable, and rebuild trust among divided communities.
The international community has a role to play in this process. Engaging with any leader in Syria must come with clear demands for accountability and inclusivity. Stability cannot come at the expense of justice.
Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rebrand may win him temporary power, but without addressing the grievances of Syria’s past, his leadership risks deepening the divides that have torn the nation apart. For Syria to truly heal, justice must not be an afterthought — it must be the foundation for its recovery.
is a social and political psychologist specializing in collective violence, intergroup conflict, and social identity, with a particular focus on the Middle East region. He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Social Justice and Conflict Resolution at the Lebanese American University.
Follow Ramzi on Instagram:
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of °®Âþµº, its editorial board or staff.