Introduction:

One of the most prominent features of the new Syrian state administration at this stage is the emergence of a leadership model based on dual roles at the head of each institution, ministry, or authority.

This duality involves two figures: the transitional figure, who holds the more prominent name and broader public/media recognition, and the core figure, who is formally subordinate but actually represents the real center of decision-making and guidance.

Structure of the Phenomenon:

This pattern encompasses almost all state sectors:

• Sovereign and service ministries.
• Independent institutions and authorities.
• Senior offices and entities with security or economic functions.

In all these entities, the transitional figure assumes the official public role, while the core figure handles the execution and practical direction.

The Hidden Dimension: Core Figure’s Link to the Deep State
In the new Syrian era, the core figure in the second tier is often directly connected to what can be called the deep state of the new regime.

This figure:

• Receives orders and guidance directly from the top leadership or the actual centers of decision-making, such as the political administration.
• Translates the vision and policies to the transitional figure, who converts them into official decisions or public stances.
• Participates in shaping ideas that determine the institution’s general path, ensuring alignment with the deep state’s objectives.

The transitional figure, on the other hand, usually draws strength from:

• Political, religious, security, or social background.
• Social capital or local and international networks.

However, they do not exercise actual leadership but are guided by the core figure organically linked to the real decision-making center.

Field Observations:

Close monitoring and comprehensive reading of the work of many ministries, authorities, and offices confirm the clear existence of this phenomenon.
While this analysis could be enhanced with concrete examples, general discussion is preferred here to avoid embarrassing specific figures or entities. The pattern is repeated enough to be considered a rule rather than an exception.

Political Dimensions:

1. Balancing internal powers: This distribution allows the new regime to accommodate diverse currents and forces by combining symbolic transitional fronts with tactical core control.
2. Risk management: In crises, the transitional face can be sacrificed without affecting the deep structure controlling the threads.
3. Continuity of loyalty: Keeping core figures in place ensures policy continuity regardless of changing public faces.

Administrative Dimensions:

1. Dual decision-making: Multiple leadership levels create parallel paths for directives, potentially slowing execution or causing priority conflicts.
2. Lack of transparency: It is difficult for the public or mid-level leadership to identify who is truly responsible for decisions.
3. Impact on competencies: Loyalty to the core or transitional figure often determines employees’ futures more than actual performance.

Contextual Reading:

Similar patterns appeared in other countries during transitional phases, but in the new Syrian case, it seems intentional, designed to guarantee the deep state’s control over decision-making, even while displaying different public faces.

Future Risks:

• Entrenching duality as a permanent rule.
• Loss of public trust when people realize that real authority is not with the visible figures.
• Creation of hidden power centers that may compete with the central state itself.

Conclusion:

This duality between transitional and core figures, linked to the deep state, represents a complex tool for managing the transitional phase in the new Syria.
While it can achieve short-term balance, its continuation without structural transparency reforms may hinder building institutions with clear powers and reproduce past issues under new names.