Talk:2025 Syrian parliamentary election: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 119: Line 119:

:That said, overlap does not need to be this big and if it is not, then I think it is disingenuous to act like independents (under previous regime) = independents (under current regime). That would then obscure the meaning.

:That said, overlap does not need to be this big and if it is not, then I think it is disingenuous to act like independents (under previous regime) = independents (under current regime). That would then obscure the meaning.

:Using independents as a political faction in general can be disingenuous, because an independent may very well align with a certain faction, but still be grouped with elected legislators diametrically opposed to their views, voting behaviour and association. [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 20:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:Using independents as a political faction in general can be disingenuous, because an independent may very well align with a certain faction, but still be grouped with elected legislators diametrically opposed to their views, voting behaviour and association. [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 20:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:Again: The “seat change” is, at best, nominal because the size of the PA is different (250 vs. 210), the electoral system is different and the regime is different. The seat change, to an unknowing reader, would imply that the “independent” faction gained a lot of political sway when the landscape has been “reset”.

:Again: The “seat change” is, at best, nominal because the size of the PA is different (250 vs. 210), the electoral system is different and the regime is different. The seat change, to an unknowing reader, would imply that the “independent” faction gained a lot of political sway when the landscape has been “reset”.

:A comparable case is the [[1990 East German general election]]. Technically the same parliament and technically you can do a “seat change” for the former bloc parties, but that information would be meaningless or even confusing to potential readers. [[User:Maxwhollymoralground|Maxwhollymoralground]] ([[User talk:Maxwhollymoralground|talk]]) 21:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

:A comparable case is the [[1990 East German general election]]. Technically the same parliament and technically you can do a “seat change” for the former bloc parties, but that information would be meaningless or even confusing to potential readers. [[User:Maxwhollymoralground|Maxwhollymoralground]] ([[User talk:Maxwhollymoralground|talk]]) 21:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have a few questions/concerns about parts of this article.

1 the first paragraph of the “constituencies” subsection is about elections in Raqqa and Hasaka.
Should this really be there? There’s already a section about “postponement in Suwayda and the AANES”. It also might be outdated.

2 The constituencies subsection also mentions (at the end) there are 62 constituencies. This is inconsistent with the earlier statements that claim districts will function as constituencies and that there are 65 districts.

3 It is mentioned in the postponement section that elections in Suwayda and areas under control of the AANES would be postponed.

3.1 However, only Hasaka and Raqqa are mentioned, when parts of Deir ez-Zor (north of the Euphrates) and Aleppo governorate (particularly Ayn al-Arab and a small bit in/near Aleppo city) are (at least according to the map on Syrian civil war) still under the control of AANES. So how is this correct? Will there be elections in those areas? They are not shown as postponed on the map.

3.2 Beyond these, there is another governorate I’m confused about: The Qunaitra governorate. This area (as well as parts of neighbouring districts) is occupied (mostly) by Israel. (Referred to as the Golan). On the map Qunaitra is coloured as if it will have elections. But how is that even possible when Israel controls it?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Slomo666 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomo666

  • I’ve moved the paragraph in the start of constituencies to the section on postponment
  • Some districts seem to be combined, so there are only 60 constituencies as counted in the map and as reported by some news outlets. Two combinations aren’t geographically contiguous, which I think is why some outlets report it as 62 constituencies.
  • The governorates with cancelled elections are coloured and listed as being postponed because the government said “they are being postponed”. I don’t know how exactly the Syrian government is going to carry out elections in Qunaitra and Deir ez-Zor, but they haven’t given any indication that elections there won’t take place so they aren’t listed as postponed
DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I bring back the “there are 65 administrative districts” part you removed this morning? Because from what I’m getting here, administrative districts ≠ constituencies. (But these are still used to make the constituencies)
Slomo666 (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed it as I don’t think it’s relevant how many districts there are – only how many constituencies. You can feel free to re-add it if you’d like DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recalling recent edit by Special:Contributions/67.188.36.38, I would like to ask if we can even know anything about this… is there any evidence that elections have occurred?

I understand that they have been postponed, as recent edits claimed. So are they or are they not happening? Slomo666 (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s going to happen on 5 October according to all reliable sources DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What name should we use for parliamentarians that are elected? Different sources use different terms, like “Deputy”, “MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly)”, “MP (Member of Parliament)”, or the current “MPA (Member of the People’s Assembly)”. Since Syria’s parliament is fairly unique in that it is called a “People’s Assembly” instead of a more common “Parliament” or “House of Representatives”, a name for parliamentarians is less intuitive. Which fits best? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say ‘member of parliament’ would be the clearest and most easily-understood term, particularly for non-English speakers. While the legislature isn’t called a parliament, it doesn’t stop other countries using the term (for example, in Zambia, members of the National Assembly are commonly referred to as MPs, even by the electoral commission). MLA or MPA would probably not be widely understood, while deputy is more of a French/Spanish thing. Number 57 01:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t interpret the following as crass , but what is true in Zambia does not have to be true for Syria. Generally, I think we can use terms used in (English language) media. What does the Syrian commission say? Slomo666 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for some context, the Syrian interim constitution refers only to its parliamentarians as being “a member of the People’s Assembly” DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was excited to go through all issues I thought with (non)hyphenation, as you can see in my latest small edit, but found out that what I thought was a single inconsistency (sub-committee) actually occurred rather frequently, but so did the non-hyphenated version. I am not certain which is correct. MOS:HYPHEN was not very clear on this. If someone knows some logical way to decide which or if both can be used on the same article, that would be great.

I also took the Bold decision, (which I did not, at the time, think was bold) when faced with inconsistent MOS:TIME formats, to opt for the 24h format for the cases I saw at first glance in the article. If someone disagrees, I don’t mind much if you change it to 12h. Now that I’m reading again, I think I made an error (9:00am should be 09:00 in 24h format). If (when) we find consensus on the time format, I think we should add some sort of template to make that clear.

Some other small fixes that could be done are related to commas, (including adding ‘and’ after commas sometimes and commas versus semicolons, adding or removing commas…) issues like was/were and time-dependent terms like is/was, will/would (I saw at least one inconsistency with both of these.) and (non)capitalisation. (I may have also missed some punctuation issues)

The list of candidacy requirements needs careful review: “have not be” is obviously incorrect, but it may not necessarily need to be “have not been”, as it may sometimes refer to currently held positions. (or both, which is why checking the source is important)

I may do some (or all) of these issues if I have time today, but if someone else gets to them before me, all the better. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be a new name for the people’s assembly? I’ve been seeing lots of posts from journalists and other sources that the People’s Assembly is to be renamed to the Syrian National Assembly (Arabic: الجمعية الوطنية السورية). Obviously no RS coverage yet, but something to keep an eye on seeing as a renaming was mentioned in a reliable source DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 22:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57, Freedoxm, Aréat, RamiPat, and Abo Yemen: for all elections, when the assembly is dissolved, the name of the last speaker is added. So adding (until 2024) is already a good compromise. Panam2014 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed it because that’s not consistent (e.g. when there are elections in the US Congress, editors would not have linked Kevin McCarthy as the previous speaker. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last speaker is Sabbagh. Panam2014 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely not linking Kevin McCarthy is because a different speaker was elected in his place? In which case, the replacement speaker Mike Johnson would be linked. But I think adding Until 2024 either in a footnote or in brackets would make the most sense DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why do we display the speaker on the bottom of the infobox anyway? The speaker is just the presiding officer. It would make more sense to display the Prime Minister at the bottom of the infobox DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syria has no prime minister Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had a prime minister before, though. And in the new constitution, it says the People’s Assembly elects a “President of the People’s Assembly”. Why don’t we display that DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 07:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to put the previous parliamentary majority. Panam2014 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014 That was never set to be the standard. There’s already an article that features the previous Baath majority. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard. It should be restaured. Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better (if we are to include “previous speaker” (or president if the assembly, the actual title is not the issue imo)) to say “office established” or something like that instead of “vacant” to indicate the discontinuity between the two legislatures? Slomo666 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m opposed to that though, because I think they didn’t abolish the role of Speaker, just renamed it the President of the People’s Assembly. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument here isn’t really based on the abolition or renaming of a position, but rather the discontinuation of the body as a whole. This new body, while sharing a name with its predecessor (predecessor only as the national legislature of the Syrian state) does not clearly inherit its powers or even context. It exists in a different context and a different constitution entirely, under a different regime. There’s no transfer of powers or continuation between the bodies. The old body was abolished and a new one established under a new (temporary) constitution to fill its place.
I say “office established” because the body this position was created for is new. The previous speaker is not succeeded by the president of the new assembly.
If I am horribly wrong, my apologies. If you disagree, I have said what I mean, and can only surrender to your judgment. Thank you.
Slomo666 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox it currently says that the electorate is composed of circa 6000 electoral college members. However, in the body it says 7000. In the results section, it also says 6000.

The source used for the 7000 (in the section electoral system) is a BBC article, but the way the BBC brings up the number is “according to the largely pro-government Syria TV”.

While the BBC (I’m not sure about BBC monitoring tbh) is considered a reliable source, I think the way this bit us currently sourced is not. We should at least repeat the attribution the BBC article uses of “according to” and perhaps also including the qualifier (“largely pro-government”) for Syria TV.

Preferably I’d like to find a better source and to have clarity and consistency within the article on the number of registered electors.

Slomo666 (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following a dispute, should we list the seats and the seat change of Independents from the last Ba’athist election? Pinging @Panam2014 @DimensionalFusion @RamiPat @Maxwhollymoralground Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t ask me specifically, but I interpret this question as open to all editors: I think it depends on the context. If the old “independents” are of the same (ideological, political, sectarian, religious, etc) faction as the new, then yes absolutely.
I am not well-read on this, but I assume this to be possible as those would have been the only opposition to the Assad regime, and the currently allowed candidates are only those who were opposed to the Assad regime or renounced it.
That said, overlap does not need to be this big and if it is not, then I think it is disingenuous to act like independents (under previous regime) = independents (under current regime). That would then obscure the meaning.
Using independents as a political faction in general can be disingenuous, because an independent may very well align with a certain faction, but still be grouped with elected legislators diametrically opposed to their views, voting behaviour and association. Slomo666 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: The “seat change” is, at best, nominal because the size of the PA is different (250 vs. 210), the electoral system is different, these are not the same “independents” and the regime is different. The seat change, to an unknowing reader, would imply that the “independent” faction gained a lot of political sway when the landscape has been “reset”. I think you can show the independents in the infobox though.
A comparable case is the 1990 East German general election. Technically the same parliament and technically you can do a “seat change” for the former bloc parties, but that information would be meaningless or even confusing to potential readers. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top