When a Country Is Ruled Through Telegram

At a moment that should have marked a turning point in Syria’s history, a moment when a people shattered by war, betrayal, and tyranny should have finally heard a voice redefining their future, the great announcement arrived.

Not in a speech to the nation. Not in a press conference. Not in a moment of unity or reassurance.

Instead, it came through scattered Telegram posts.

Just like that, with no discussion, no referendum, no even symbolic gesture of legitimacy, Ahmad al-Sharaa declared himself the head of Syria’s transitional phase. No celebration of tyranny’s fall, no words to ease the fears of a weary people, just a few lines, as if Syria were nothing more than a chatroom, governed by brief statements and digital decrees.

The new tyrants don’t need palaces or armies chanting their names. All they need is an official Telegram channel and a network of new apologists, people who, overnight, have become the enforcers of the next phase, just as the previous ones did before them. The only difference is the banners and slogans.

This moment was supposed to be historic. A leader guiding Syria through transition should have spoken to the people who have endured massacres, exile, and endless suffering. There should have been clear commitments, unwavering promises, and a binding social contract. Syrians deserved to hear:

"This is our plan. These are our principles. This is how we will govern. These are our guarantees to you".

But instead, a leader was appointed by personal decree, as though Syria were an estate handed from one ruler to another. As though Syrians did not even deserve the illusion of choice.

Dictatorships don’t begin with iron and fire; they begin with the slow, quiet erosion of the people’s will.

If Assad built his rule on brute force and security apparatuses, the new would-be tyrants are attempting to build theirs on forced consent—on a manufactured moral framework that justifies everything in the name of necessity. It is the same method, just under a different flag.

The New Tyrants: Same Justifications, Same Excuses, Same Audience

It’s the same old play, with the same actors, recycling the same arguments:

"This is just a transitional phase, there’s no time for formalities!" (As if dictatorship is acceptable as long as it’s temporary)

"No need for drama, he’s proven himself on the battlefield!" (As if military victories grant the right to absolute rule)

"These are emergency measures, we need stability!" (As if oppression can ever be a price worth paying for so-called stability.)

Assad has fallen, but "Assadism" is still alive, flowing through the veins of those who crave power, those who believe governance is not about social contracts, but about networks, military alliances, and manipulative rhetoric that sells people illusions.

Syria Is Not a Chatroom

Syria is not a Telegram channel that can be managed through brief announcements. Syria is not a war prize to be negotiated in a political deal. Syria is not a trophy for a faction or an individual to impose their will upon.

A country whose people have paid the highest price in modern history cannot be governed through a simple administrative statement.

What is most dangerous today is not just that Ahmad al-Sharaa has declared himself president, it is that the declaration is being normalized, as if it is just another routine decision, as if it is beyond question. If this moment passes unchecked, the next announcements will come: emergency laws, postponed elections, media control, elimination of opponents, and the indefinite extension of the so-called "transitional phase."

Every dictatorship begins here: The moment people accept unilateral decisions without resistance. The moment revolutionary rhetoric starts justifying new forms of oppression. The moment critics are branded as enemies, advocates of democracy as troublemakers, and those demanding justice as "obstacles to progress."

The Revolution’s Final Test

A revolution isn’t tested only in the fall of a dictator. It is tested in the rise of what comes after.

Will we repeat the mistakes of the past? Will we accept a rebranded version of authoritarianism? Or will we finally demand a Syria where power belongs to the people, not to any single man?

Ahmad al-Sharaa is not the problem—the mindset that allowed him to declare himself leader without accountability is.

Tyrants do not appear out of nowhere. They are created—by those who justify, those who remain silent, those who say: “These are just details, the bigger goal is saving the country.”

No country is saved by legitimising dictatorship. No nation is built by forcing decisions upon its people. No future can be shaped through a single Telegram post.

Before this method of rule takes root, Syrians must ask themselves the most critical question of all:

Did we fight Assad only to replace him with another version of the same tyranny? Or will we finally demand a country governed by the will of its people, not by the will of one man?