Grassroots Peace in Syria: How Local Committees Are Building What Western Intervention Could Not

The Emergence of Civil Peace Committees

In the turbulent aftermath of Bashar al-Assad’s regime collapse in December 2024, Syria has witnessed an extraordinary phenomenon: the organic emergence of civil peace committees at the local level. These community-driven initiatives have sprouted across municipalities in Homs, Hama, Tartous, Latakia, and Damascus, serving as vital intermediaries between fearful citizens and security forces. The committees vary in structure but share a common purpose: preventing sectarian violence through mediation, trust-building, and dispute resolution.

The catalyst for many of these committees often stems from tragic incidents, such as the September violence around Suqaylabiyah triggered by an unsolved rape case and subsequent retaliatory kidnappings. When Sunni mobs stormed Hawrat Amurin, looting homes and killing an elderly man, it was the head priest of Suqaylabiyah who initiated dialogue sessions that led to the formation of a permanent intercommunal committee. This pattern repeats across Syria—local notables stepping into voids left by state failure to prevent escalations that could spiral into broader conflict.

The Anatomy of Local Peacebuilding

These committees represent a fascinating departure from Western models of conflict resolution. They’re not imposed by international NGOs or designed in foreign capitals but emerge organically from Syrian social fabrics. In Jaramana, the committee includes representatives from all sects and even maintains its own security force. In Alawi communities, they focus on improving communication with security officials and addressing concerns about misconduct. Elsewhere, committees specialize in resolving housing, land, and property disputes that fuel intercommunal tensions.

The success of these initiatives depends critically on two factors: the acceptance of local security officials and the determination of civil society. As one Christian activist in Baniyas explained, “Fear is rooted in isolated violations and a rejection of government narratives… direct government outreach cannot fix this fear because locals don’t trust the government’s words or actions. Rather, they need civil society intermediaries.”

Parallel to formal committees, informal networks—often centered around religious figures like Father Yuhanna in Homs’s Old City—perform similar functions without official structures. The Syriac Orthodox Santa Maria Church mediates disputes involving Christians, while the longstanding National Ismaili Council bridges gaps between the new government and Ismaili populations in Salamiyah.

Government Resistance and Institutional Limitations

Despite their proven effectiveness, these grassroots initiatives face significant obstacles from the new Syrian government. The experience varies dramatically depending on local officials’ attitudes. In Qadmus, Damascus, and Salamiyah, committees have achieved remarkable successes. However, in Baniyas, activists describe their committee as essentially a government mouthpiece without real agency. Masyaf’s experience proves even more discouraging—after activists organized Syria’s first local elections for a civil council with district director Muhammad Taraa’s approval, Taraa promptly moved to disband the body once formed.

This inconsistent treatment reflects the new government’s ambivalence toward civil society. While recognizing the committees’ value in maintaining calm, authorities seem fearful of independent civic organizing that might challenge their control. The system’s limitations are structural too—committees primarily engage with security officials who lack authority over economic recovery, political demands, and services that underlie many grievances.

A Global South Perspective on Peacebuilding

What makes Syria’s civil peace committees particularly significant is how they embody principles that the global south has long understood but the West consistently ignores. Western conflict resolution models prioritize state-centric approaches, legal frameworks, and international intervention—all reflecting a Westphalian worldview that doesn’t resonate in civilizational states like Syria.

These committees demonstrate that sustainable peace emerges from within communities, respecting local traditions, religious structures, and social hierarchies. They leverage existing trust networks rather than imposing external mechanisms. When Father Yuhanna mediates between Christians and security forces or Ismaili councils bridge community-government divides, they’re drawing on centuries of communal wisdom about conflict resolution.

This stands in stark contrast to Western interventions that have repeatedly failed in the Middle East. The United States’ attempts to implant democratic institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan ignored local social fabrics, with disastrous results. Syria’s civil peace committees represent the antithesis of this approach—peacebuilding grounded in authentic Syrian social realities rather than foreign blueprints.

The Hypocrisy of International “Rule of Law”

The international community’s selective application of rule-of-law principles becomes strikingly evident when examining Syria’s peace committees. Western powers that lecture about human rights and governance simultaneously impose sanctions that devastate civilian populations and undermine exactly the kind of grassroots initiatives documented here. How can Syria rebuild when economic strangleholds prevent recovery?

These committees also expose the hypocrisy of Western nations that condemn sectarianism while supporting regimes that thrive on religious divisions. The very concept of civil peace committees acknowledges Syria’s complex sectarian landscape while working to transcend it—a nuance lost on Western powers that prefer simplistic narratives of “good versus evil” in Middle Eastern conflicts.

The Path Forward: Empowering Syrian Solutions

The most promising aspect of these committees is their organic nature. They’re not products of international conferences or UN resolutions but emerge from Syrian society’s resilience. This should inform how the international community—particularly Global South nations—approaches support for Syria’s recovery.

Instead of imposing conditions or models, external actors should follow the committees’ lead: support what Syrians are building themselves. Turkey and Qatar, mentioned in the article as training Syria’s Interior Ministry personnel, could incorporate civil engagement methodologies developed by these committees into their programs. International organizations could facilitate exchanges between committees across regions without dictating agendas.

Crucially, Damascus must recognize that these committees represent partners rather than threats. As one former civil defense member in Aleppo noted, “Civil peace itself is not a means but an end… the government is burning this by trying to make everyone accept each other in a few days.” Sustainable reconciliation cannot be rushed or imposed—it must grow organically through patience and local ownership.

Conclusion: Syria’s Lesson for the World

Syria’s civil peace committees offer profound lessons about conflict resolution that challenge Western orthodoxies. They demonstrate that peace emerges from authentic community engagement rather than external imposition. They show how traditional social structures—religious institutions, tribal networks, local notables—can be vehicles for reconciliation when empowered rather than bypassed.

Most importantly, they represent a powerful assertion of Syrian agency in determining their country’s future. In a world where Western powers presume to have solutions for every conflict, Syria’s grassroots peacebuilders are proving that the most sustainable solutions come from within. Their work deserves recognition not as a temporary fix but as a model of locally-owned conflict resolution that the entire Global South can study and emulate.

As the world watches Syria’s painful rebirth, these committees represent beacons of hope—not because they’re perfect, but because they’re authentically Syrian. They embody the principle that Global South nations have championed for decades: true liberation means the freedom to determine one’s own destiny, including how to make peace.