Just as Liberia faced complex challenges on the path to peace after its most recent civil war ended in 2003, so too does Syria face a difficult path forward on peace and reconciliation. Yet the successful case of Liberia – now a stable and functioning democracy – shows that the path is not impossible, and there is no shortage of lessons that Syria can learn from.
In Liberia, the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and other regional partners were instrumental in the country’s rebuilding process. Liberia’s GDP was $295 million in 1998, the year before its second civil war began. Since the war ended in 2003, Liberia has received over $6 billion in combined aid, loans, and debt relief – many times more than the size of its economy in 1998.
In contrast, rebuilding Syria could cost as much as $400 billion according to the Carnegie Endowment. This is substantially higher than the total aid pledged to Liberia, even after accounting for inflation since the end of the Liberian civil war.
For context, Syria’s GDP in 2010, one year before the outbreak of war, was approximately $60 billion. The Marshall Plan’s nearly $13 billion post-WW2 recovery fund for Europe (approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars) also falls well short of this immense $400 billion estimate.
Funding Syria’s reconstruction will require a substantial commitment of resources. To put things into perspective, the world’s total nominal wealth has increased faster than inflation. Global GDP is over 50 times larger than in 1960, valued today at over $100 trillion.
In contrast, one dollar in 1960 is only worth about 11 times as much in 2025. Thus, in essence, $150 billion in today’s money is a smaller fraction of global wealth than $13 billion was in 1960.
Regional states will have an important role in reconstructing Syria. Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council have a combined GDP of about $2.1 trillion. Türkiye, which neighbors Syria, has a smaller GDP at about $1.1 trillion. Combined however, these countries are on par with the UK’s $3.4 trillion GDP. Germany, Japan, China, and the United States all have higher nominal GDPs.
Realistically, if there’s a will among the international community, then a mix of aid and loans can put Syria on a more stable economic footing going forward.
But importantly, there will need to be strong safeguards against corruption and graft. Here the Liberia case can be instructive. Liberia has had periodic difficulties with corruption, but they can provide lessons on how to avoid certain pitfalls in Syria’s case. Examples include full transparency for government officials and departments, due diligence with regard to managing finances, and public participation in the aid-distribution process.
Geopolitical tensions affecting Syria will likely influence which parties end up supporting the country through aid. Syria is surrounded by regional powers who became involved in the civil war along sectarian lines.
By comparison, Liberia’s experience in civil war was relatively straightforward and less geopolitically contentious. Competing geopolitical interests between regional players like Türkiye, the Gulf Countries, and Iran are among the most salient issues that rebuilding Syria will face as these countries jockey for regional influence.
The Hard Work of Peace and Reconciliation
Encouraging the political and economic reintegration of former fighters is a paramount concern. In Liberia, economic programs specifically designed to reintegrate former members of rebel groups have been largely successful. The country has also successfully integrated militia members into the military, creating a multiethnic force in the process. The military also received direct human rights training aimed at encouraging better relations between the military and the civilians.
In Liberia, former political rivals were encouraged to compete not through armed conflict, but in the halls of the legislature after contesting elections. This process for Syria will be difficult; not all militias may agree to disarm or demobilize and reforming the old military will likely require years to complete. But this integration is an absolute necessity of most successful post-conflict transitions, as is currently the case with Syria.
Empowering communities that had been marginalized by the fighting was a key element in the success of the Liberia’s rebuilding. Mass grassroots action, in tandem with the empowerment of women helped stabilize Liberia’s political system and encouraged participating of a diverse array of groups in civil society. Similar processes will need to play out in Syria in order to bolster stability.
Liberia also established a truth and reconciliation commission and encouraged dialogue within formal political processes – avenues of dialogue that are common in Western democracies, such as town halls with politicians, public debates, etc. Syria, too, will need to develop similar outlets for dialogue if it is to truly become a democratically governed state.
Governance Questions Loom Large
The nature of any new political institutions will need to be carefully considered. Liberia retained its presidential system after the end of its civil war. However, this may not be the most ideal form for Syria. After over a decade fighting the authoritarian Bashar al Assad, a strong presidency could see a return to those same practices. If executive power is monopolized by one group via the presidency, sectarian divides could worsen.
On the other hand, a parliamentary system could bring weaker checks and balances in the country, and Syria’s fragmented sectarian landscape could make parliamentary governance difficult.
Adopting a semi-presidential system, which effectively divides executive power, could encourage coalition-building and negotiation between the various political factions. However, there is a risk of political gridlock whenever the president and prime minister are from different parties.
A federalized Syria is another option that’s on the table. The main concern here however is the potential instability that a shift to a federal system might entail. A federal system, furthermore, could weaken national unity and make Syria susceptible to outside influence in the future.
Given coherent ethnic blocs like the Kurds in Syria’s northeast, who have long been actively seeking autonomy, and the Alawites along the Mediterranean coast, a federal system may be necessary to protect their political interests and secure their buy-in. In comparison, Liberia has remained a unitary state throughout its long independence.
Syria will also need to change its parliamentary electoral system. The current party bloc system effectively ensures that the largest party in an electorate wins all of the seats being contested. Special care will need to be given to ethnic minorities to have their voices and parties represented. Some degree of proportional representation in the national parliament would be an effective way to accomplish this task.
Implementing a proportional system, as with adopting a federal model, will face similar sectarian-related hurdles. Sectarian and security concerns aside, even the most stable of countries find it difficult to reform their constitutions and electoral systems.
There are, furthermore, challenges that Syrian faces that Liberia faced to a lesser degree. The scale of internal and external displacement in Syria exceeds that of Liberia; hundreds of thousands of Liberians were displaced, compared to 14 million in Syria.
This heightens the complexity of reintegrating displaced citizens. Furthermore, Liberia faced significant challenges in institution-formation and trust-building activities, challenges that will be even more critical for Syria.
Though ultimately the task of building a new Syria rests in the hands of the Syrians themselves, it is undeniable that major international interventions will be necessary along the difficult road ahead.
But given sufficient international will, the Liberia case suggests that peace and stability can return to Syria.
By Alec Soltes
