The Syrian people must decide the fate of their country

The argument

War has raged in Syria since the early 2010s, beginning as civil unrest between citizens and President Bashar al-Assad over how the country should be governed. What followed was not the resolution of that dispute but its displacement. Outside powers intervened on both sides, for and against Assad, and the conflict became a contest in which external actors pursued their own interests through Syrian territory. Over 200,000 Syrians have died and half the population has been displaced. The argument for free and fair elections rests on the nature of the original dispute. The question that started the war, who should govern Syria and by what authority, has never been answered. It has only been fought over, and fought over increasingly by parties who are not Syrian. Every settlement imposed from outside reproduces the same defect: it determines the country's future by the balance of force among intervening powers rather than by the preference of the people who will live under the result, which leaves whoever emerges without a claim to govern that the losing side has any reason to accept. This is why Syrian activists who want an end to the violence hold that peace will not come until Syrians have a democracy. On their account the war is sustained not only by weapons but by the absence of any legitimate mechanism for deciding the question at issue, and so long as no such mechanism exists, force remains the only available means of settling it. An election is the one procedure that can produce an authority grounded in the population itself rather than in whichever foreign sponsor prevailed. Because the Syrian people must decide the fate of their own country, free and fair elections must take place.

Context

The context the Syrian crisis is a context of a Political Dynasty that is the Assad regime. The Assadi regime has been able to use his power to trample down against any form of dissent in his power regime. The regime has eliminated over 13 million Syrians. It's not only a political, social, and economic crisis but also a Humanitarian crisis within a Totalitarian and Authoritarian regime.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Outside influence from Russia, the United States, Turkey, and other countries makes it impossible for the Syrian people to decide their own fate. The number of resources within Syria and its tactical geographical position creates too high of an incentive for foreign countries to meddle. They will not allow Syria to determine their own future.

Rejecting the premises

The interest being advanced in Syria, isn't an interest necessarily by the sovereign to advance the public interest of the Syrian Civilians but a private interest so as to profit from the resources in terms of Natural resources to enrich the external actors.This form of advancement maintains authoritarianism in the exchange of resource-value and territorial retention.The private actors also maintain a parasitic form of relationship where they establish a Humanitarian Aid agencies at the expense of maintaining their own private interest.

Framing

The fundamental principles of democracy;accountability, public participation and justice is cardinal for the Syrian sovereign.This maintains their political autonomy without any external actors intervening and manipulating them to advance their interest. This establishes the government for the people,by the people to the people for a social contract.Democracy is fundamental for a prosperous future for the Syrians.