One of the most restrictive pieces of legislation from decades of Assad family rule remains active in Syria and continues to hinder civil society. Law No. 93 of 1958, the law regulating associations and private institutions, was a long-standing tool used by Hafez and then Bashar al-Assad to control groups that could challenge the state — from human rights monitors to charities and women’s organizations.
The statute gives authorities sweeping powers: organizations can be dissolved for vaguely defined reasons such as disrupting “public order or morals” or because officials claim their services are unnecessary. There is no meaningful judicial oversight or right of appeal. The law also enables the state to restrict political activities, control events, dictate membership in international bodies, regulate registration and leadership, and tightly monitor funding — particularly foreign donations. In a 2016 submission to the UN Human Rights Council, CIVICUS argued that the law effectively denied Syrians the right to freedom of association.
Assad was removed from power at the end of 2024, and the interim government has publicly said it intends to repeal Law 93. Yet the measure remains on the books. Late last year the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor instructed civil society groups to comply with the existing rules, and more than 2,000 organizations operating in the country continue to press for repeal and replacement with enabling legislation.
Human rights experts warn that restrictive laws can outlast leaders and be reactivated. Amna Guellali, research director at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), said laws that securitize civil society do not automatically become harmless when political leadership changes. CIHRS’s October study on Syria’s civil society warned that keeping such legal instruments in place creates a ready-made toolkit for future repression. The institute says its recommendations for repeal went unanswered; inquiries by other outlets to the interim government also received no reply.
On the ground, enforcement of Law 93 is uneven. Hiba Ezzideen, who leads the Syria-based women’s group Equity and Empowerment, told DW the law is applied irregularly. CIHRS interviews with dozens of civil society actors found similar patterns: decisions and restrictions are often arbitrary, sometimes made in writing under the law and sometimes communicated orally with little explanation. One group described an abrupt cancellation of a planned Damascus event on transitional justice, while comparable meetings were later allowed.
The Syria Campaign, a UK-based rights organization, has documented instances where local officials demand a role in hiring staff for civil society groups and where meetings — especially those organized by political movements — face limits. “We’ve had reports about restrictions on meetings, particularly for political groups,” said executive director Razan Rashidi, while noting such interference is not uniform across all activities.
The inconsistent application of rules has raised fears that the interruptions may be deliberate, signaling a return to authoritarian practices. An off-the-record founder of a Syrian human-rights monitor said they would like to believe the obstacles are not intentional, but cautioned that the state does not exercise complete control over every institution and that recent intercommunal violence, in which government forces had some involvement, complicates the picture.
Fadel Abdul Ghany of the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) urged a broader perspective. SNHR, which documented abuses across the conflict, struggled for years to register and open bank accounts abroad but is now registered in Syria and continues to criticize the authorities. Abdul Ghany emphasized that Syria remains devastated by a long conflict: corruption, destroyed institutions, scarce funding and limited administrative capacity are all legacies of the Assad era. He said some ministers have expressed a desire to reform, but face significant practical obstacles.
CIHRS’s Guellali said the current situation reflects both capacity shortfalls and political choices. Transitional authorities that genuinely commit to democratic inclusion typically prioritize early legal reforms that safeguard the freedom to associate, she noted. Ezzideen agreed that multiple factors are at play and warned against rushing to conclusions, but stressed that the urgent need is for clear, consistent legal change.
Many observers view a thriving civil society as central to Syria’s transition. Rashidi pointed out that since Assad’s fall a number of groups, including victims’ associations, have been able to establish offices inside the country — a development she described as “like a dream come true.” After 14 years of conflict these organizations have gained experience delivering aid, restoring social ties and maintaining strong community networks that could be valuable in shaping future public policy.
The chief worry among activists and analysts is that temporary arrangements and bureaucratic delay will harden into permanent restrictions. Continued inaction on legal reform risks preserving the very instruments of control used by the previous regime, potentially setting back prospects for a more open, pluralistic Syria.