You decide: who should be in charge?

Josie Delap is The Economist newspaper’s Middle East editor. Watch her explain how the government in Syria has recently changed.

Video not working? follow this link: https://vimeo.com/1047510469/216d43856b?share=copy

There are mixed opinions about what should happen next for the Syrian government. Here are three of the options that have been suggested by the public:

  • A icon

    A = Ahmed al-Sharaa, the rebel leader who took over the country, should remain the president of Syria

  • B icon

    B = The country should immediately hold an election to decide on a new leader

  • C icon

    C = Another country with a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria

Comments (224)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • From my beliefs, I think that B would be the best choice. I said this because in point letter A it reads”
    Ahmed al Sharaa the rebel who took over the country should remain the president of Syria” to me is a false answer due to the fact that citizens in Syria might thank Ahmed for him helping out and taking over, however some citizens might have a point of view that he is not the right fit for a leader. For an example, as a lot of other Americans have said after the Donald trump help bring back Tik Tok most Americans thanked him, However they still didn’t see him as the best person for president. Moving on the point C, it wouldn’t be right to have another country decide what another country actions of leadership are when there are citizens inside of that country who have their own opinions that are being stripped from them if another country has the say so. For instance, a way to better understand is if the largest swing state had the say so of the election for all the other swing states. And for those who have a parliamentary government it’s basically how citizens can vote for your chief executive. In the end, from my point of view point B would be the best decision because they allow the citizens to use their opinions to choose their leader.

    1. I agree that B is the best choice and that they should hold a general election. This because they can’t just let Ahmed al-Sharaa stay as president as it’s wrong and Syrians don’t know anything about him. Even though he said he would give the country goodness and freeness he could be lying and we can’t trust him. It can’t be C either because citizens might not like their decisions and begin another war that really wasn’t necessary. That would just destroy Syria even more. So that leaves option B, to hold a general election. Of course, there are pros and cons but so does everything and I believe that this is the right choice. Yes, there are 6.3 million citizens out of the country, but wouldn’t you rather that than a war or a cruel president? So that concludes that I think the best decision would be B

  • From my point of view, option B is impossible as millions of Syrians are outside the country but also internally displaced making it very difficult to prepare an electoral roll. Moreover, Syrians can be divided into different religious and ethnic groups, so the results of a hypothetical election could be divided between the existing factions and destabilize more the country. Option A depends on some factors, as al-Sharaa (or al-Goliani) has promised that he will respect all religions and women's rights, but no one knows the truth around this as promises are free. Especially coming from al-Sharaa, a former Al-Quaeda as well as DAESH member. Even though the HTS separated from Al-Quaeda, some could argue that al-Sharaa did this to be able to receive humanitarian aid. Nevertheless, many expected the rebels to act as the talibans did, but at this moment it looks like they are going in an opposite direction and if this continues to be so, al-Sharaa has good claims to be the democratic ruler of Syria. Option C has its pros and cons, as Syria could try to be transformed into a democracy and join the opposition to Iran in the region. However, Israel and Turkey have some conflicts in Syria (with the Kurdish people as Israel supports them and Turkey doesn't) and Turkey wants to rearm Syria while Israel has destroyed their weapons in order to avoid future invasions from here, so these countries could have problems when deciding the future of Syria. Still, the positions of the USA (as they have mixed feelings about al-Sharaa) and Russia are important as they hold their troops there.

    1. This is a very interesting comment that shows lots of prior knowledge of the topic. Well done! Where did you do your research? And do you think all people in a certain religious or ethnic group are guaranteed to vote the same way? Why/why not?

      1. Hello and thank you for appreciating my comment. Since al-Assad's regime ended, many news outlets as well as geopolitical analysts have talked about the situation in Syria so I have been able to stay informed about this issue. Therefore, the research I have done not only to stay informed but to comment here, was on some national and international news outlets but mostly on two YouTube channels about geopolitics called Memorias de Pez and Solo Fonseca. Now, regarding your question, it is true that it is impossible for an entire group of people to act in the same way but Syria is a country made up of very diverse peoples, with lots of different ethnicities and these ethnicities are also made up of different religious groups. For example: the Syrian Sunni Arab Muslims, the Alawites (who were the rulers of Syria under the al-Assad regime), the Druze, all the existing Christian minorities, the Kurds and the Shia Muslims. Another important factor, is that under the al-Assad regime, Syria was a secular state but when the HTS rebels took power, some feared that as Islamists, they would impose the Islamic law and persecute the other minorities, even though at this moment that hasn't happened as I said in my previous intervention. As a result, I think that if elections took place today (which is highly improbable) each minority would probably vote someone that represents them or maybe coalitions between different factions or groups would be made in order to prevent a certain group from taking power or for seeking safety until it is more clear what will be Syria's future.

        1. I learnt a lot from your detailed answered. You articulated the complexity of the situation very well!

    2. I agree with your point B is truly impossible. Citizens of syria have been struggling since years and now when they own freedom it will be really tough for them to hold a election immediately as the situation of syria doesn't seems to be really good a another powerful country should take over syria , so that the citizens can be supported by the country. But in my opinion countries like UAE or Saudia Arabia should take over syria as syria , UAE and Saudia Arabia have most of their population as muslims uae and Saudia Arabia would better understand this nation as compared to Russia or USA.

    3. I agree because I think the people of Syrian are unsafe and are not happy in there country is sad and scared and if Ahmed al-Sharaa was in charge he would help there country and he promised to show respect to all the people in Syria 🇸🇾.And if he was in charge they would be a peaceful country this would help all the people in Syria to get help and to help them to get to a safe place and live a peaceful and and happy life. This is very sad for all the people that are not in the country and I think there should have a chose if they would rather be in Syria 🇸🇾 or if there would rather be in a safer country like the United Kingdom 🇬🇧

      1. I agree because Ahmed sharaa has helped the Syrian to fight for their lives and he made sure that the people were save so I think I buy your idea of him being the next leading president because he can take charge and also provide for those who were left without anything during the war.

        1. I agree because... Ahmad al- Sharaa helped them fight the wars and helped them to win their freedom back from the Assad family after a period of fifthy years. I think that the rebel leader should be the president of Syria because he has proved that he will do any thing his power to protect Syrians from wars and help them to solve their problems.

          1. I take your point, efficient_emotion -- but Mr Sharaa has a complicated history. He wasn't always interested in keeping people safe; quite the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to read more about his life path.

          2. You have really captivated me with your point and I think I support what you are saying. But I would like to make it more clear to you that rebel leader did not help the Syrian to win their freedom because he did not fight against the Syrians but instead, He fought for the freedom of the Syrians just to make sure that they are independent of their own and they don't suffer any colony. I'm not trying to say that they were colonized by the Assad family but they were under the charge of the family and as you know, a ruler in a democratic government is only allowed to rule for four years for the first tenure and a maximum of eight years but this particular family have ruled for more than 8 years and the problem needs to be solved. That was what Ahmad al- Sharaa did for the Syrian. Hope you understand better now.

            THANK YOU!

      2. I somewhat agree with you but some Syrian people are afraid of Ahmed al-Sharaa to be like his “leader” before. If you keep al-Sharaa at the top of the gobernment, you are not appeasing their insecurities.
        I think the best option they can find is to have elections when everything starts to be more stable. As lots of Syrians are refugees in other countries, they should communicate to them when everything goes well and to tell them that they can vote for a new leader or vote for al-Sharaa in these elections. This means that al-Sharaa will have the power for about two or three months, and then, he could be truly elected.

        1. I understand your point, philosophical_crow, but I mostly disagree. It is true that some citizens and refugees think that the president of Syria could turn out to be a dreadful dictator but we need to have hope. If the citizens of Syria have hope, then Ahmed al-Sharaa will see what a lovely, caring country Syria is and won’t turn against them. All they need is hope. Therefore, I disagree with your first point. However, I do agree with your second point that there should be an election. An election would work as well because the majority of Syria will be happy with their choice of president and become president. In conclusion, I am quite torn between A and B. Ahmed al-Sharaa has kept his word so far and hasn’t gone against the citizens of Syria. But maybe we should play it safe and let the people of Syria have a general election. They are both good choices and I think either would work well. Thank you for replying to my comment.

        2. yes, they are insecure about what might become of them if al sahara is their leader because his history is rather not convincing for him to be put in a place of position considering he is a leader of a rebel group, but considering the fact that he outsed al assad from power to save Syrians it's is a bit confusing and complex for me because he might have other intentions that does not exactly suit the Syrians. At this point the Syrians are very vulnerable to anything because of the destabilizing experience they faced during the rein of al assad even if they are given an opportunity to vote to choose their leader they are not still sure that the new leader would turn out like the way al assad rein was i feel the best option is for a country with a strong democracy decide the next step because Syria and its citizen are not stable both economically , emotionally other wise. in addition looking at what they have faced for the past 24 years they dont seem economically strong enough to conduct an election they have other critical issues to handle like amendment of their 1. hospital 2. schools 3. infrastructures and other amenties that would secure a future for syria . the mind of many Syrians are filled with uncertainty especially for children our age and lower who had to face a lot at their formative year , this should be their priority because they are the future of Syria.
          Thank you.

      3. I totally agree with you because Syria is not in a very good state right now with thousands of innocent peoples
        houses in pieces and refuge destroyed . I think that the leader of the rebels was obviously against the Assad Family and wouldn't do anything like they did , he would be a great leader of Syria and he would rebuild hospitals , houses and many other of things that have been destroyed . He also understands what it feels like to be in the pupils crisis because he is exactly the same as them when he was fighting for what was right and I believe that he would help Syria rebuild their country .

    4. I disagree because... Option B might be the best option Syria could have and in my opinion people in Syria might even have a chance to have the right to democracy and even do what they think suits them. Have any of you ever thought about why this is happening to Syria and why is it affecting the country? Also, Syria has forcefully been led by people that they didn't want to lead them. So, after this I think that Syria should be allowed to pick their own leader, if they pick their own leader they would definitely pick the right person because they have been led by unwanted people and this might be the best opportunity for them to make their nation a better place for them all.
      In conclusion, I say that the Syrians should be allowed to pick their own leaders by an election in order to lead the country back to peace and unity.

      1. I agree because... option B is probably the most viable at this specific point in time as it makes for a democratic approach without forcing any biased actions/decisions from other countries onto Syria nor leaving the peoples fate up to chance with the current leader.Furthermore,it is my assumption that due to the recent 'win' for the rebels the people are in an uproar because of their newfound freedom.I dont think they would be too keen on letting it go ,hence, their elections would be based on the greater good,their choice reflecting a whole society and not just personal gain.
        To conclude, as eager_clam mentioned, after all these years of dictatorship the population of Syria have earned the right to have a say in who their leaders are

    5. I see your point about option B, but we must bare in mind the other consequences. I think that although Ahmed al-Sharaa has promised the citizens lots of rights, and freedom, those are just promises. He has take the power in an agressive way, and we cannot know if he is not going to take control of the country without the people's opinion. Besides, regarding letter C, I don't believe that another country could choose another leader in a fair way, as they cannot see the perspective of the citizens of Syria, and they could choose the president in a way that would benefit them, it would be a dangerous decision.
      Now, speaking about option B, I must say that I understand your point of view, I know that maybe it wouldn't be fair enough for all those Syrian citizens that have fled from the country due to the civil war, but they must make a decision, and choosing a leader in a pacific and democratic way, under their criteria could be the best way of trying to fix a little bit this huge problem. Of course Ahmed al-Sharaa could have the possibility to present himself to the election, but together with other candidates with different ideas.

    6. I think that, B, yes for now it's impossible, and A is the best option, but Ahmed al-Sharaa fought hard to take the last president down because it was not fair, but I don't think it's fair neither if he, after he took down the one before, to take the power. I think that for now they could focus on rebuilding and giving aid to people, and reach out to the refugees to come back to the country, although it would be a challenge because the country, economically, isn't really in an ideal situation, all of this with al-Sharaa in power, and then have an election, in which also al-Sharaa could be elected.

      1. I agree because... Most people have disappeared into the wild and unexpected world but it doesn't mean that everyone has left and this country is empty otherwise it would have shut down anyways there's still a population and we'd still improve it, a wouldn't be the best choice as I'm not sure about the Government itself and most people don't really like him. In my comment I said a is also a good option But in my opinion it's also not I'm, in the middle and I'm not really sure about how a is a good comment. And to the people who think that b is impossible it isn't, in my opinion I would say b or c is a better option and I have explained it in my comment as c is not the best option but if you don't agree with me I understand you. I Don't expect you to agree with me but I would say b but of course it's not my choice you so I would recommend your choice

    7. I strongly agree with you. in my own opinion, I think A is the best because Ahmed al-sharaa has kepy his word saying he will respect and treat the people better than the Assad regime. I think B is impossible because some syrians have different religious tradition which may say they shouldn't hold an election.

    8. I agree because syria needs a better leader and it a wonderful thing to say

    9. I agree option B should not be possible, because Syrians have been struggling and it'd be tough for them to hold an election. They shouldn't have to pick a leader after only recently regaining their freedom.

    10. I dont agree with you, because from my point of view, option B is the best, because even if people is displaced and there are many refugees around the world, there is the posibility for absentee ballot, and refugees and people displaced, all of them have the option and the oportunity to vote and the president would have been the decission ef them. I also disagree with your opinion about letter C because there are some examples in history, like palestine and israel, in wich other countries, have decided for them and it doesnt ended in a good way, as well, you will be taking out, the right of voting of the Syrians.

    11. I disagree because no one knows maybe he is planning to something bad. It is not even fair to make him the president without elections as the biggest problem that faced the syrians was that they didn't have fair elections to vote against the old president so it is a pretty bad start to have the first president without elections.

  • If I think about what could be the consequences of what might happen, I agree with chatty_moon that option B is not very likely to include all of the votes because over half of Syria's population is displaced. Also, A is an option that not all Syrians would like, because that person took over their country - if you think about it, Ahmed al-Sharaa is from Saudi Arabia, which relationships between the countries have been weakening and deteriorating.Since the start of the Syrian Civil War and Saudi Arabia's multiple calls for Assad to be ousted from the power. Furthermore, since the start of summer in 2013, Saudi Arabia has become the main group for financing and is separating itself further from the Syrian government. Although option C would be a strong choice, there is a likely chance that it would not be the best option for them. I would say that there should be a global election online, that will be shared all over the internet to help all Syrians know that it is there.It is quite like option B but more likely that all Syrians will know that it is there.

    1. Interesting suggestion about holding an online vote. Do you think there are any risks with holding an election online rather than on-person? How soon do you think it would be better to hold elections for the future of Syria?

      1. Hi!
        Thank you for replieing to my comment.
        I do think that there would be risks of holding an online vote, but there is no easy way to avoid them that I can think of.One of the risks might be people voting more than once, or people doing something on there that would not be... well ok.If they held it this year, it would be good, but not too soon just in case they don't know about it yet, maybe if somebody was to inform the world about it now, then in 5 months or so, it could be held (I don't mean that it actually would happen though).

  • Yes, well I think that there should be a somewhat mix of option A and option B. Although Al-Sharaa has made statements that talk about the development of Syria, but who knows about tomorrow. So, in my opinion AL-Sharaa should stay in-charge of Syria as the President, but still if the people feel inferiority about his governance so then elections shall be held soon. Also this policy shall stay under every President till when Syria gets back on to the track and becomes stable. There shall be an electoral body who would be responsible for elections, as well as for conducting surveys in short durations to know about peoples' views and opinions on the in-charges. This would surely help Syria fasten their post-conflict development. In addition to this, this would also pressurize the Presidents to work honestly because there would always be the power with the people to change their leaders without any minimum time-period to wait.

    1. I also think that the answer is in between options A and B, but in a different way. Firstly, I think holding elections is the best way to decide on Syria’s future and to ensure a functional democracy there. However, holding elections is still too difficult at the moment as there is no functional government body yet and the people are still shaken by the recent events. Additionally, option C is the worst out of the three because of the difficulty in deciding “Which countries have a strong democracy?” and “Who should be allowed to decide for Syria?”. These questions could cause further conflicts between nations with conflicting goals for Syria. Even though we can’t be fully certain about Al-Sharaa’s intentions, it would be best to temporarily choose him as head of state as he is currently the best fit due to his position as the leader of a rebel group. In addition, he is familiar with the Syrian people’s needs, making him the safest candidate for a short-term presidency. However, I don’t think he should stay in power for long, as, like mentioned above, his intentions are unclear. That is why I believe the best solution is to have Al-Sharaa hold general elections as soon as a stable government is established and the situation has calmed. Then, a new long-term leader can be elected or Al-Sharaa may be re-elected if the people are happy with him as head of state.
      In summary, I think both A and C are bad for the long-term and B is to difficult to execute at the moment, so Al-Sharaa should be allowed to govern until democratic(!) elections can be held safely.

      1. I agree with you, in my opinion, option B seems like a good idea, but right now it might not be the best one because most of the people from Syria left the country for their safety and they wouldn’t be able to vote. Another reason is that there are a lot of different opinions and maybe they wouldn’t all be able to agree on one that is the right choice right now for their country and it could make it worse rather than being a good turning point for the country.
        Option A is a risky choice because we can’t know the future and what people’s real intentions are. If Ahmed al-Sharaa will remain the president of Syria it could be a very good thing for the people because after all this years the country could be safe and people from their country would come back and they could try to rebuild it. If those are not his intentions then it could all turn into a worse situation.
        To sum it all up, i think that maybe option A and B should be mixed and in the first periodt of time after the Syrian rebel groups took control over the country Ahmed al-Sharaa should remain president and try to help the people and focus on making the country a better place. After the country is in a better place financialy and socially people should vote because everyone should have an opinion and a choice to make for the better of their life and the country’s future. With every choice made there are risks and people shoud consider what is the best for everyone.

  • In my opinion, I think the Syrian people should vote for a leader of their choice.I feel Syria should be a democracy where the people vote for who is in charge every 6 months. This will mean that there will be lots of parties wanting to be in charge but if the people vote the certain party they wanted.I also feel Syria should let people 13+plus vote as there will be equal chances for every party to win.

    1. I noticed you suggested holding elections every 6 months. Has that ever been done before in any other country? Do you think there could be any risks with holding elections twice a year?

    2. I see your point, however I think that elections twice a year would destabilise the country more than it already is. Syria just had its ‘turning point’ and as over 5 million refugees are not in their country, a fair election would be almost impossible. I think that they should be given some time so that those who flee to other countries can go back in their homeland so that everyone can have the right to vote. Also, your idea of citizens of over 13 being able to vote could have a beneficial impact, yet I consider that teens, as they spent most of their life running away from armed protests, they won’t be able to be aware of what is better for their nation and what could affect the population. Also, you said that Syria should become a democracy which I feel it’s easier said than done. For a country to become democratic, its population need to be brought together and have a similar opinion about the state of their country, which I think should be out of question in Syria’s case. Back on your idea about elections once 6 months, I feel that Syrians will get confused by the multiple leaders. Moreover, the voted president wouldn’t be able to do something in favour of the country in that short period. Also, the shortest presidential term in the world (currently) is 4 years from what I have read, nowhere near to 6 months.

  • Hello!!
    In my opinion I say that option B is the most viable choice. This is because I believe that it should be up to the people that are living in a place to decide who will make the rules and who will lead them in the right direction. I think that if another country decided for Syria then that's not right because then its like their being controlled and it doesn't let the people of Syria have a word in the big decision. As for the Rebel, I do not believe that they should remain being president because I feel that it was wrongfully acquired and I feel that no matter what the case is, there is and should always be a more reasonable and safe option instead of resorting to violence and I feel that it should have been done in a more safe and educated way. Ultimately I think that when it comes to deciding who will rule and lead a place, then it should be voted on by the people who will live and be in said place because at the end of the day, they will be the ones affected by whoever is in charge.

    1. You are right. Holding a proper election is the best thing that will happen to Syria to settle things down because if their fate is left to other countries to decide for them, they might feel voiceless and decide to revolt which will lead to another war. So I think that if they have a proper election that goes well, the people get to decide who will lead them and if anything happens they will know that the choice of government was theirs, We can also say they elected the leader by themselves. I am hopeful that a proper government will be a huge turning point for them.

      1. I agree because,
        Holding a proper election is the best way to choose a president without being racist or bias. It should be supervised by an international body, so that the election would be free, fair and devoid of revolt/violent selection of a new leader. An election would help establish a democratic government with an internationally recognized position in the global community.
        Also the Syrian people will be able to make new laws that will set a time limit for elected leaders in power.
        Syria would enjoy a peaceful country that would lead to reconstruction and stability of its war- torn society for the return of its refugees.
        A democratic government most times is a reformed government not a controlled government.
        Thank you 🙏🙏🏼🙏🏽🙏🏾🙏🏻🙏🏿

      2. I agree, because if a proper election is held there will be no cheating or unfairness. This should be done so that there will not be feeling of displeasure from the citizens that they have been cheated, that is why I say people should do a really proper election to reduce displeasure, anger and dissatisfaction. Another reason I agree with you is because if an election is not held immediately it might result to another outbreak of violence or attack from other countries.

      3. Hello thankful_truth! I really admire this opinion, and I think you are absolutely right! The Syrians should decide on their own who the next leader of the country should be, since other countries aren’t in their shoes, and they don’t actually know what being in a war like this feels like. And,I also honestly don’t think the president should remain as leader, since violence and war really isn’t the right option! But, since he did promise he wouldn’t force anyones religion and will keep everyone in peace, then choosing a new leader is very risking, since nobody knows if the next leader would be the same as Ahmed al-Sharaa, and choose peace. But, we also don’t know if Ahmed will keep him promise.
        Thank you!

    2. I don't think B is the most viable choice. As it would be best if Syrians could elect their government, it isn't really possible right now. Syrians of all Religions are spread all over the world. It would be impossible to hold a proper representative election. Additionally, there is simply no infrastructure to hold a proper election right now. An election would also slow the progress of rebuilding the country due to the government not necessarily focusing on the rebuilding, rather focusing on election campaigns.
      I agree on your other point: C would just cause a conflict of interest. As we have seen before, the intervention of another country almost always leads to bad results (e.g. Afghanistan).
      Therefore, I would choose A for the moment. It certainly poses some risks, but as of right now, it is the best solution for the people. After the country stabilises, there could be elections hold.

      1. I definitely understand what you're trying to relay, but there are multiple risks that are involved if we go with option A. Yes, he has promised to work until Syria is restored, but we don't truly know about the values he holds or his opinions and way of thinking, there is a good chance that he might end up enforcing strict religious laws, but as you've already mentioned B and C are just as risky. What do you propose they should do, as the suggestion you gave earlier about choosing A is equally if not twice as risky.

        1. I understand what you're trying to show me. Yes, I think every option has its risks, but ultimately, A is the most straightforward one out of them. B wouldn't work, because there is simply no infrastructure to hold an elction and it would also slow the progress of rebuilding. Aditionally, if an election were to be held, it wouldn't be representative as many Syrians have fled the country. C also isn't a viable choice as it creates a conflict of interest and has never led to good results (except Germany). And adressing your point: Yes, I'm aware that A poses some risks and I also wouldn't implement it fully. There should be control authority ready to step in if there would be something going wrong. It is the only realistic and viable solution at the moment. And I also don't want to deny the need for elections: But now is not the time to hold elections.
          Therefore, I think a mix of A and B would be the best solution. Elections should be held as soon as possible but only if the country is ready. Furthermore, there should be a control authority that oversees all the work done by the temporary gouvernment. It should also be able to step in and take action, if needed. It's time for the resurrection of Syria. And for that, we need to give Syria back to the people. Now, they are in charge of their country.

    3. I see your point of view, but how could you hold an election since a lot of Syrians are outside the country and another country could intervene and affect the votes. For example Russia could put one of his candidates and sway the votes so the candidate Russia prefers may win and Syria will become again a dictatorship. I know B seems a good option,but it will be very hard to achieve and the elections might not even correct. I think A is the more realistical option.

    4. I completely understand your point serious_iceberg , and I agree that people should have the right choose their leader. However , I respectfully disagree with the idea that holding an immediate election is the best solution in this case . Syria has faced a lot of problems , and if the country is not stable , the election might not be truly and fair , as people may be pressured or unable to vote properly. Also , while it is good for a country to make its own decisions , sometimes outside help is needed to bring peace and fairness. Therefore , a strong democratic country could help Syria set up a fair election rather than controlling it . Before voting for a new leader , it is important to make sure that Syria is safe and ready. That way , the people can make their choice freely and without fear .

    5. Hi serious_iceberg,
      I agree with your thinking. This is because if option A happened then he president of Syria could end up being very strict in a religious way and be even worse than the Assad family regime. In case this happens, we should not choose option A. Lots of people say option C is the best choice but I disagree because if another stable country chose who should be in charge, then the citizens of Syria could go against that decision and that could start another war. There is only one option left: B. There are the pros and cons, but overall I do think it is the best choice. If the Syrians living in the country decide who should rule the country then the majority of the people would be happy and that is what we want to do. I am aware that there are approximately 6.3 million people outside of the country but most of them should already be settled in their new country and probably won’t return too soon. In conclusion, I agree with you, serious_iceberg that B is the best decision.

      1. Can you list the pro's and con's to option B?

  • In my opinion, it can be a mix between B and C. Every one who learn a new skill should imitate and learn from someone who successfully made it before, and people in Syria are with no much money or food because of the old government and no stability, so a strong country could make everything stable and give them money food help them develop and give them tips to be a strong country for few months, but this have to happen without any type of occupation or interfering in their internal affairs.

    After things are stable this country will leave Syria on its own and after everything is now perfect, elections will start and citizens will chose fairly who will role as all decisions should be made by Syrians and their land must remain safe.

    Syrians have suffered alot from their old government because of its unfairness and depressing but they now see their bright future driving near on the road.

    1. It's interesting that you suggest that Syria should hold elections after things are stable.
      What do you think are the main things that need to happen so that Syria becomes stable and ready to have elections?

      1. Hi Yeman!
        Of course, Syria would need a lot of things to happen before there can be elections. Starting with the necessary polling stations. Syria is almost completely destroyed. There are no city halls as we know it from our “western countries” where the Syrians could vote. Also, a problem would be first to find proper candidates who aren’t too radical (which isn’t easy because there are a lot of radical and especially Islamist thinkers in Syria). Additionally, another problem would be the information of the population about the candidates, the political situation and how and when the election takes place. There is no public and neutral media which is consumed by the majority of Syrians. How should a country which has never been a democracy in the last century suddenly hold an election without the population having been educated in the factors the way a democracy works? A lot of poorly educated people in Syria wouldn’t be able to make up a reasonable opinion on who should be in charge of the country.
        To sum it up, there are two main factors which make an election in the next few months really difficult. These are for one infrastructural problems such as the lack of polling stations and for another the bad education the population has received on how democracy works in the last decades.
        I’m looking forward to see your opinions on that question!

        1. Hi, Thanks for your reply!
          I noticed that you referred to the problem of finding proper candidates who are not radical and Islamist thinkers.
          But I wondered, do you think it's for people outside Syria to dictate to Syrians who they should and shouldn't vote for?
          Do you think that their culture and worldview could be different to ours which could lead some to vote for candidates that others outside the country may not necessarily vote for, but isn't democracy about respecting the choices of people, even if we may disagree?

      2. Well, in my opinion, survival is before anything, so food and water must be available for everyone and they have to be transported as aids.

        I think alot of people have heard that the old government locked up many people because they only hate the old government. Now after the old government fell all people inside the jail have their freedom,but nobody thought that some not all people who were inside the jail are actually criminals, and that is why we must first organise the police for safety.

        Another important point is that houses have to be rebuilt as old houses are about to fall and other people have no houses, so we must build houses for them to protect them from freezing winter.

        Last but not least, parties must be developed to be able to start the elections.

        1. Good point about establishing parties before having elections.

  • In my opinion i think b because the people of Syria should be able to choose who they want to be incharge for them and shouldn't be forced to listen to someone they don't want as there president

    1. I agree because... thety should not be controlled by another goverment

    2. I agree with your point of view, because a country should have its own rights and its not fair for someone else to control them. They should make an election for a new prezident. Its also important to save innocent people lives, because the population will decrease. If the prezident is a rebel, than this will affect Syria's sustainability and goverment forces. I dont think he is abble to rule a country because he dosent have enough experience for this special event.

  • Hello,
    I think option A is so far the best option. The gorvernment isn‘t very stable at the moment, and to hold an election it needs other or more canditates to compete against eachother. Since the situation is very hard for the Syrian people, it is also hard to find other competitors. I believe, that there are bigger concerns than holding an election: As I already mentioned, the situation is very hard for the people. They are suffering, there is very little food, the people are sick. The economic situation isn‘t better either. Hospitals, schools and other very important infrastructures have been destroyed. After these problems have been fixed, there will probably be more candidates, and an election can be held, if the people still aren‘t satisfied with Ahmed al-Sharaa.

    1. I agree with your perspective. I believe that in the current situation Syria is in, they should stick with option A for now. Like you said, holding an election admist the ongoing problems in Syria would probably not go well. Since Syria was taken over by a rebel group, if an election were to immediately take place some people would likely not want them in charge, which could lead to the other few political parties with harmful intentions to win an election. Especially in the heat of the war ending, people may not want a rebel group that fought its way to be the leader. So, I think Syria's priorities should be in helping the country get back up on its feet.

      1. Interesting ideas. Do you think it's fair to force Syrian refugees back to Syria even if they have settled and adjusted to life in a new country?

        1. I believe that it would not be fair to force a Syrian refugee back to Syria even if they have settled and adjusted to life in a new country. Mainly, it would not be fair to force someone back to their country they had fled from just because the war is over. Also, if a Syrian refugee had settled and adjusted to life in a new country and chooses to, they should be allowed to stay, not forced out of their home. Forcing them out of their settled home into Syria which is still rebuilding from war with many ongoing issues would be unfair to the Syrian refugee. It disregards the Syrian's own decision.

  • None of the answers here are completely accurate but the one that comes closest is C. Here are my reasons; in option A, the tyrant leader should not be allowed to rule. No one would be happy to have a dictator governing them. In option B, almost all Syrians are scattered around the world some in turkey and others elsewhere. I option C, I am very sure that the Syrians would like to govern themselves.

    I accept criticism
    Thanks.

    1. Can you be certain about your claims? You say "almost all Syrians" - is this factually accurate? And "I am very sure" - on what grounds are you sure? I'm keen to hear more!

  • I definitely think it should be b or c because a country close has to deal with them so it my help and the people should decide who it is to lead them

  • I definitely choose option B. Sharaa is a former member of Al Qaeda and until recently was a recognised terrorist. Syria needs to form into a stable democracy eventually and when this situation is so dire it cannot be compromised. Waiting allows HTS to form a dictatorship and solidify absolute control and that is why it is obvious for me that an election needs to be held. For decades Syria was ruled and oppressed by the Assad family and if we wait any longer it will be ruled by a new dictatorship. This is not to say dictatorships are exempt from doing good but this is ultimately about the civil liberties of Syrians. HTS does have a good history governing Idlib so we should not completely discriminate against option A but despite this, I think it just is not true that Syrians from minority religious groups will be treated the same by an islamist government. If you govern with islamic law then equality between religions fundamentally cannot exist and this is why I think option A is dangerous and is not a good idea. Option C should only be considered a little. Small amounts of foreign interference are needed in Syria to ensure a safe future but I do not think that the future as a whole should be decided by foreign countries as that is a threat to the sovereignty of Syria. Syria does need foreign help but it does not need foreign rule. This is why I think overall, option B is preferable.

  • From my standpoint I believe that option A should be what happens next for the Syrian government. To me option B does not seem right because when Fidel Castro over took the Cuban government he became the new leader for that country which makes me feel that the leader of the people that are making that revolution should rightfully become the leader. I do understand that people in Cuba did not really like the new government. However, I still believe that it is right for the leader of the revolution to be in charge. Similarly, I do not believe that C is the right choice either because I believe that every country should be free and should be able to decide on how their government should be without another country doing it for them.

  • I think the correct answer to the question from my point of view is option b. Elections should be held IMMEDIATELY and Ahmed AL-Sharaa, the rebel leader should not be in power. As because of the conflicts a lot of Syrians have lost their jobs, houses, lives and everything else. Nobody likes to live in foreign nation but out of fear all the Syrians had to. Through re-elections a more powerful and wise leader should come in power to save the country from fading away. If not then we don't know if the current president might engage in more such conflicts and the fear remains. I think Syrians should be given a choice to stay in the same country or return back to Syria as a lot of them would still be in fear, doubting that everything is over. Yet having fear in their hearts of what when might happen to them or their lives. If these steps are not taken the countries re-building cannot be done and Syrians life will stay in immense danger. Also though the current president promise he will respect all religion and women. But we don't know if he actually will or all his promises are vain. Al-Sharaa also has good claims about democratic Syria but the doubt remains. If re-elections do not happen then the women, other religion people or other commoner's rights will be exploited and the so claimed democracy will not be existing.

  • I am mainly leaning towards option A for the time being and option B for the future. This is mainly because of the current state of Syria as in the plethora of displaced people throughout and outside the country along with the destruction from the coup. This temporary government gives time for Syria to rebuild as well as time to get to know the new leader Ahmed al-Sharaa. Then, when the Syrians are ready they can vote for him or vote for someone else depending on how well he does. Also, the reason I do not like option C is because of history. There have been many times when "democratic" countries try to help another country but just end up making things worse. For example, the time the US put a puppet government in Cuba (Batista) and it caused a lot of corruption and inequality. My point is option A can be used temporarily until the better option B can be used and option C is too much of a risk.

  • I believe that B would be a normal answer yet C would be the safest.B is where Syria gets together put down the guns knives etc.. to vote for a leader but that only exists in a perfect world.What are the chances of being peaceful with everyone?!There will most likely be a civil war causing more havoc then there already is in the unstable Syria.C would be a safe answer yet it would probably result in violence and rebellion against the country that picked them.And if Ahmed goes back there would be a lot of chaos and dissatisfaction will arise.So you really can't pick without drama occurring.

  • I think that the safest Option is Option A, to make Al-Sharaa the President of Syria because he did many good things trying to defend his home country and succeeding which is also why he already has been ruling the country for many years. Option B sounds way too dangerous to me because it is kind of difficult to make an election without a leader or a proper government and it can easily be sabotaged and rigged to benefit ones horrible ideas for the government. There are also way too manye Syrians outside of the country looking for better shelter and it is obvious that they are not sure wether their home country is safe right now or not. Those outside the country are having a dilemna by either choosing to stay safe in their current country or go back to Syria to aid others without knowing if its even safe. Option C might also be a a good option even though there is a risk of actually making things worse like during the Palestine war where another country tried to interfere but just caused more problems. Although a country with a better democracy can help Syria very much, the country could also be using Syria as a way of corruption, benefiting their own land and people. This is why in my opinion, Al-Sharaa should be elected president because he also promised that Syria would be in good hands without any corruption nor discimination. Of course some people don‘t trust him which is why they should atleast give him a chance because of his hard work and aid over the past years.

  • In my opinion, A is the most right choice because Ahmed al-Sharaa fought for his country and managed to get it out of a dictatorship and he seems prepared to rule Syria. I think C isn't fair for the Syrians because they should choose who will be the leader of their country, not another country for them. How will Syria become a democracy if another country chooses their ruler, that it's just not democracy anymore. You could held an election, but it will be very hard to have a stable government as there are many factions in Syria and all of them are fighting for power and also if there was an election it is uncertain if the elections will be correct. For example someone could rig the votes and then Syria will have again a ruler that was not chosen by the Syrians.

  • From my perspective Ahmed al-Sharara (A) shouldn’t remain as the president because what happened before could happen again.
    I amn’t sure about B as most of Syria’s citizens are outside the country and it would be hard to decide because they won’t have the whole case and all opinions.
    I think C is the best answer since the country deciding is not biased and know the whole case to decide correctly.

  • A devotee who have fought for the progress of its country should be rewarded aboundantly because of his great achievement and it will also serve as a way of letting such person know that his effort have not been in vain, therfore i am choosing option A as the right option, Ahemed al-sharaa have played a great role in taking back the country therefore i think he should remain the president of syrian because he deserves it the most, as he was able to lead the rebel group, i think he will also be able to lead the country succesfully.
    On the other hand, i think that option C is not right, this is because one of the characteristics of a country is the ability of it to be independence, meaning that they are free to make thier own chioces and free from external forces, so if another country make a chioce for syrian citizens, is still same thing as though they are not yet free and therefore cant make their own personal chioce. Democratic system of government allows citizens to participate on election and be able to choose who is to lead them as as a leader, this is the citizens political right which they are meant to exercise as citizens so it wont be proper for another country to make their chioce for them concerning who is to lead them, for they will fell they are not yet free, and that they are still under some countries which is why they can not select their own leader.

    1. What specific qualities or achievements do you think make Ahmed Al-Sharaa the best candidate to be in charge of Syria?

      1. Thank you for that wonderful question, i think one of the qualities that make Ahmed Sharaa the best candidate is that he has leadership quality,and also posseses a charismatix authority. why i said this is because it will only take some one that has a leadership quality to be able to gather or cordinate others in other to come together to think and achieve a great deal, also as someone who posseses leadership quality he will also have a charismatic authority which was why he was able to convince so many people into following him.
        Of course having a leadership quality is not easy because you are expected to posses crrtain qualities like tolerence, which will make you to tolerate others opinion, good moral which will stand out f0r for you and remenber that controlling a group of people is worst than controlling a group of animals because humans have different opinions as their faces differs from each other. So i believe thatsince this man has these qualities, he is definetly the best, because we have seen it him as he was the rebel group leader.
        Thank you.

  • In my opinion, I believe that C is the best option for Syria. I say this because the government of Syria is in a time of instability, and the citizens are sceptical about how the following months will turn out when dealing with the government and rebellions in spite of the new government. And according to the UNHCR, over 13 million people from Syria are displaced, meaning over half of the citizens would not be able to vote for what they want the government to look like. However, a country with a strong democracy like the U.K or the United States would be able to provide stability to the citizens and government during this time of hardship, and bring aid and support. In addition to this, I think that the country with a strong democracy should pick a brief leader (if supported by Syrians) to lead them through this crisis. And once they are stable and have started to rebuild what they lost, an election should be held. In unforgiving times likes this, Syrians need someone to be able to depend on and provided strength to not only the government, but to the citizens that have lost so much during this time.

    1. I disagree with you, I say this because although you said the citizens are unstable as of right now and are sceptical about the next month with the government changing. However we can give a generous yet still not to long amount of time to collect their thoughts, then after host an election whether to keep Ahmed Al Sharaa as chief executive or not. However, I do agree with how you discussed how you think that a more stable country should step in to bring aid. You also went on to say that another country should pick a leader as well. Referring back to one of my previous comments I stated that Syrians shouldn’t have their opinions and their say so on THEIR country stripped from them because they aren’t “stable” that’s like if Florida had the say so for all the other swing states in America in a election. In the end, I do agree with you on one term however you believe that Syrians say so on their country should be taken from him being where I disagree.

  • From what I see, B is the most reasonable option. If Ahmed al-Sharaa was to continue being the president, not everyone likes him. And if another country was to choose for them, they would feel over powered. So the best option is to immediately hold an election.
    THANK YOU ! ! !

  • Due to the situation in Syria, I believe none of the options given are suitable. Instead, I think outside help and support from another country for a peace process involving all parties of Syria instead of letting another more powerful country decide might work better. This way, the Syrian people can decide their future fairly and without outside involvement.

    1. Interesting ideas. Do you think there could be any risks associated with outside help and involvement from other countries in Syria?

      1. Yes, there are risks of outside help in Syria, but careful planning can make it useful. Although outside help can make the conflict worse or create an unfair balance of power, a group like the United Nations could keep the process fair and focus on what the Syrian people need. A clear peace process can prevent outside interests from taking over making sure that the Syrian people's needs are put first. It is important to help Syrian leaders take charge and lead the way toward stability and managing their own issues. In conclusion, while there are risks, a well-planned peace process with international support can help Syrians decide their future fairly and manage these risks effectively.

  • My choice is B, because every nation has the right to determine its own destiny by free and fair elections. The Syrian people have suffered for more than twenty years from oppression, injustice, and suppression of opinion. Anyone who expressed an opinion that didn't agree with the opinion of Bashar Al-Assad's government was arrested and subjected to all kinds of human rights violations, as we saw in the news. So, I think the Syrian people now need to practice some forms of democracy and freedom of opinion, such as presidential elections where they can choose their ruler who represents their opinion and achieves their dreams that have turned into nightmares because of war.

  • From my point of view, I suggest that a possible option could be A, since Ahmed al-Sharaa promised that he wouldn’t force anyone into changing their religion, and everyone would be in peace, but we don’t know if he will actually keep his promise.If he does, then A would be a great option. Moreover,I don’t think C is a good option, since maybe the other country has a different religion, and the Syrians don’t agree with the other country’s opinion, which could lead to an even bigger fight. But, i think B is the safest and best option out of all. Even though a lot of people have left the country because of the war, there are chances they will return because of the election that will be held. And,even if the Syrians don’t return to their country, the remaining ones can decide together on a right leader for them. So, I think B is the finest option.

  • In my opinion, an election should be held immediately because it s important to support the democratic republic of the Syria and let the people vote for who they consider to be the best person.
    Also, another country or another president shouldn't control Syria because of the fact that the democracy of Syria should be the only one in charge to vote for their own country and the decision that will be held.
    On the other hand,I don't think Ahmed al-Sharaa wouldn't be able to make the country to become the best version of itself because he is like the President before who couldn't help his country but make it worse.

  • I think that either A or B would be a good option since for option A it would be a good choice since it reminds me of what happened in Romania a while ago in 1989(the Romanian revolution). From my point of view its pretty similar to what is happening in Syria right now but it happened in a less intense form.
    The revolution was initially to get rid of communism and guess what, Ion Iliescu who took over the country was a communist himself. What im trying to say is that Ahmed al-Sharaa could be a good leader and I understand that some people are scared that he will put strict religious rules or wouldnt rule the country well.
    Also it would be good for the citizens in Syria to have elections since people should have the freedom to choose their leader. Even if lots of people arent in the country right now there are still some options for them to vote even if its pretty risky.
    As a conclusion i think that option B would be the best even if it would be pretty hard i think its worth it so everyone could feel heard by saying their opinion.

  • As of the expulsion of Bashar al-Assad, Syria now finds itself lacking a leader to guide the nation through post-war reconstruction and stabilization. All options, A, B and C have their ups and downs, and funnily enough, I do not fully agree with any of these options.
    To begin with, I think C should be out of question, because lots of countries have interests in Syria, and it will inevitably come to which country should decide what the future of Syria with be. The US, Russia, Turkey? This will inevitably lead to other clashes for power, as different spheres with different ideologies fight over Syria. So, I do not think C is a viable option as of now.
    As for A and B, I believe a combination is the perfect decision, because if, say, Ahmed al-Sharaa becomes president, who would stop him from doing the same thing as Assad? Who can guarantee the situation will not repeat itself or strict religious laws won't be imposed? No one, I believe.
    And so we come to B, holding an election immediately. While I think an election would be the best choice, as people have their own say in who will lead them, the undeniable fact is that millions and millions of people are eirher out of the country or in extreme poverty, and voting would be their last concern.
    So, what is the best option? I think it is a combination between A and B. I think Ahmed al-Sharaa should be in charge for the time being, until the country stabilises and conditions are improved, so the basic needs of the population are satisfied. After that, I think holding an election would be the best path to democracy for Syria

  • If my country’s future was at stake, letting another nation decide what will happen next wouldn’t be an option. Sure maybe for resources and money to rebuild it would be essential because Syria has suffered so much losses and really need a real support.
    So that’s why i go with option B, because if they really think that Ahmed should be the next leader the citizens could vote for him.Although if other representatives want to participate I think they should be heard and only then the people to make a decision based on the informations about each candidate.
    Romania was in similar situation many years ago with the fall of communism, and their representatives Nicolae Ceaușescu, after almost 20 years of absolute power. They where violent protest that made a huge impact, but everyone wondered who will come afterwards, would it be more bad?
    Surprisingly or maybe not so much another former comunist dignitary came to power and was voted for two mandates, Ion Iliescu.
    I believe these similar situations should help people make a decision about the coming times.

  • In my opinion i think that the country should hold an election to decide on a new leader beacuse everyone shoud have a right to vote for their country .
    If so many people want to have Ahmed al-Saharra the leader then they shoudn t have a problem with the votes !
    I dont think that another country shoud decide for Syria beacuse every country knows what is good for their country .But other countrys can help Syria with suggestions and other helpful stuff.
    If we start accepting each other insted of fighting and find solutions that every one agrees to then we will make together a better place to live !
    In conclusion I think that if we heard everyones opinions in a vote than maybe we can decide toghether what is good for a country or not !

  • From my point of view, option B is the best one, because most of the Syrians are outside the country to work and earn money but mostly they are in Turkey to escape the violence form Syria. If they don't immediately hold an election to decide on a new leader, Ahmed Al- Sharaa could definitely destroy the country so I think Syrian people should vote for a leader of their choice because I fell that people aren't satiated with Ahmed Al- Sharaa.

  • I think option B is a very good option because people from that country can choose and vote who they want the president to be, so that way there won’t be any misunderstandings. I don’t think option C is the best one because I find it very unfair for the country because I don’t think another country should decide who should be the president for another country. It seems better to me if the people of the specific country votes who the next president should be for its own country.

  • I choose option B because holding an election is the best way to give the Syrian people an chance to choose their own leader and shape their own future. After years of problems and dictatorship , the people of Syria should now move towards democracy , where the citizens will have the power to choose their own leader by their choice. Having an election would allow Syrians to rebuild their future by choosing a leader whom they trust and who can understand their needs.
    I did not choose option A , where Ahmed-al-Sharaa stays the president , because being a rebel leader , he might not understand and represent the thoughts of all the Syrians , and also giving power to one person without conducting election could lead to more problems. Similarly option C , where other country makes a decision for the people in Syria would create problems , because other country might manipulate others and also the future of Syria should be decided by the people living in it not by other country's government. Therefore , having an election is the best way to ensure that Syria moves forward towards peace, harmony and democracy.

    1. Really thoughtful comment tranquil_apple and time taken to consider the options and what might happen with each one.

  • From my point of view I stand with option a as ahmed al shaara fought for the country during the civil war which lasted quite some time , this also shows his love for the country. While some may be saying that he is making namesake promises and will make syria an orthodox country but I believe he will stand his words . Also as he led the rebel groups he must have a bit of idea how to run a country or a group of people, and until the syrian refugees don't return he is the only safe option.

    1. Thoughtful comment confident_coyote. I wondered what convinced you he will stand by his words?

      1. I think that him fighting for his country during civil war was enough act of patriotism, and even if he just wanted the position he would try to stand his words as he worked hard for the position. Maybe he may not stand his words but only time Will tell that

  • In my opinion , option A which is declare the leader of al - Sharaa the president would just be another step towards catastrophe as this might eradicate democracy and prevent the people from participating in democracy thus sprouting a feeling of being ignored or unheard thus encouraging rebellions and civil wars just what happened in Assad's regime thus fuelling this never ending fire of venegance. Option B, however suggests that the country should immediately hold elections which according to me would be risky, keeping in mind the fragility and instability of the state . Since the HTS has been found in close connections with the Al - Qaeda in the past there is a high chance that this "ruler" might turn into an extremist and influence the elections also there might be a chance of political uprising, riots and manipulation of the voters in order to earn favor for HTS. Option C however, would actually prevent local politics to ever find stability and people to make their own choices , the main essence of democracy would be lost and the country would be nothing but a puppet in the hands of other strong countries. What should truly be done is that there should be some vaccum between dictatorship and democracy, to ensure the stability of the region and help people to settle down and make up their minds accountably, since minds struck with trauma would take immediate actions without thinking of the consequences. People should be allowed to think for atleast three months, since what is a democracy if its not FOR the People, FROM the people and BY the people.

    1. Given the challenges you've mentioned - do you think it's possible to move from dictatorship to democracy without causing more instability?

      1. Well, that's certainly a thought provoking question and I would like to answer it in a similar manner. As observed in many instances , often removing dictatorship has led to a lot of instability , however if we connect to the people directly without going through the monarch or the dictator then the people would actually know whats right or wrong for them. Like in Syria only, they have a local radio which mainly focuses to empower people through knowledge and the hope for better future, if we use these channels to communicate with the common people, this would create less catastrophe and more space for ideas of individuals. Other measures such as educating the people about the benefits of democracy and how to be an active citizen that participates in democracy, it is really important for people to know the basic fundamentals of a democracy. While educating and creating awareness remain important we must also take steps to empower people and assure them that whatever is being done is for their own good and not promote any personal interests and politics, if such assurance is given to people then it would automatically build trust amongst them and would eradicate any possibility of instability in fragile states.

  • I choose B because I agree that Syria should elect a new leader so it will be fare to the citizens than allowing Ahmed al-Sharaa to be the president with out having the opinion of all citizens, because if that is done the people will have a president that everyone voted for.

  • I think option B is the best out of them all but also most unlikely to happen. Syrian people should make decisions about who leads their country, not another powerful country because only people in Syria know how it is to actually live there. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if thats the way it is going to be; I think the option A is whats going to actually happen and those people still won’t be able to vote for their country and who leads them. If Ahmed al-Shaara remains the leader, I hope he will do what he promised to Syrian people (respect all religions and their rights).

  • According to me option b is more preferable by me , organizing a ballot to descide a new leader could be a metamorphic step towards restoring Syrias political,social and economic system.This will proceed towards the importance of representative government and will give the Syrian people a lucky chance to choose their leader after a very long run.

  • I think that option 2 is the best approach because I think that option 1 isn't very fair. I mean, just because Ahmed was the one to get the Assad family out of the government doesn't immediately mean that he is a good leader. Also, I think that option 3 isn't a good idea either because, in my opinion, Syria is obviously the most likely to know what the country needs rather than another country and I think many people could agree with me here. Therefore, for my argument for option 2 being the best idea, I think this because, as I've said before, the people of Syria are probably the best to be able to vote for it because its their country that they have to live in and, they will know what the country needs best.

  • I think B as most People will be happy and with option A who said the Ahmed al-Sharaa might not know how to run a country (a country is bigger than a protest after all) and the country’s might make Syria angry 😡 and start another war

  • I think all of the people in Syria can vote for who the next government will be after the civil war because some people trust the Syria leader Ahmed al-sharaa to be the government but some people think he will make strict rules and will start war again killing more citizens.

    But I also think that they should not vote as 6.3 million people seek Asylum meaning they can’t vote so if they come back to Syria they might not trust the government and they could be in danger and might be killed as they do not have rights with the government

  • I choose be B, Syrian people should have the choice for who they want to control the country and make the big decisions. Many people think that voting is a fair way of making a decision and democracy is the way to make it a fair country. On the other hand, many people think voting is unfair since 6.3 million people had to flee (due to the 12 year war caused by Bashar al-Assad). This leads to unhappy people who don’t get to vote since they’re in other countries. Lots of people think Ahmed al-Sharaa would be a great leader, and would help Syria rebuild and help poverty across the country. In my opinion, many people are thinking, he’s making promises that he will not keep. Moving on, C is a good suggestion. Asking another country with a strong democracy, policy and government could then help make a big decision on how to have a strong government and the correct leader. Personally I think if the country that they choose to pick for them make a decision, they do not like that’s could then lead to Syria, turning against that country and attacking, causing more poverty for both countries which would seriously affect the lives of the next generation.

  • From my point of view, option B is the best one to go with because millions of Syrians will agree with each other as they all voted for what they believe in and there should no more civil wars hopefully will stop. option A is a good idea but the people in Syria are worried about if the rebel alliance and if they will bring strict religious rules in to there lives that they don't want. option C I don't think another more stable country should be in charge of who will be in charge of Syria as if they make

  • I think that the right think to do is B because it isn’t fair if for instance the UK decide because the people are the people living in the country not the UK. The people should have an election to decide who the president should be.

  • From my point of view, option B is the best one to go with because millions of Syrians will agree with each other as they all voted for what they believe in and there should no more civil wars hopefully will stop. option A is a good idea but the people in Syria are worried about if the rebel alliance and if they will bring strict religious rules in to there lives that they don't want. option C I don't think another more stable country should be in charge of who will be in charge of Syria as if they make the wrong decision the country who made it will be in trouble.




    so in conclusion I think option B will be the best option

  • I think that B is the most important decision because the people should have their rights to choose their leader that they will willingly follow. On the other hand, if they didn’t I am concerned that there will be another civil war. This could lead to power imbalance. The people of Syria are suffering from a brutal war and they need a leader. Though some people still feel that they are in danger so if they were they chose their leader the Syrian people will feel safe again.

  • I think B is the right decision. This is because if A (Ahmed al-Sharaa) remained in charge, he could turn out to be a strict dictator who enforces an unfair religious regime. He could turn the tables and be even worse than Assad family. Ahmed might imprison argumentative citizens who go against his choices and even kill them. That cannot happen, so I rule out A to prevent the slightest possibility of that occurring. I don’t think C should happen either for if another country decided who should rule Syria, Syrian citizens could go against that country’s choice and start a war with that country. In order to stop any of this occurring, option B should be chosen so the Syrian citizens can decide who they think has the right to rule. Even though there are millions of Syrians outside the country, when they come back they can decide if they agree or disagree, and could change the decision. So I think that B is the best choice.

  • A civil war that Syria has been going through is a lot right now, and choosing a government {or ruling party} for the people's welfare is what is to be taken really very seriously.
    The given options above are to be known about accordingly, option A suggests the rebel leader {Ahmed al-shaara} to take care of Syria as president, option B states that the country should choose their leader through an immediate election and option C frames that another country with strong democracy should choose what happens to Syria. Now option C is what seems impossible according to me, well, the country is already in it's worst condition right now and we don't know if the enemy country might conspire against it. Also many people would protest on this because it is not them who is choosing their leader but some another country. Option A suggesting Mr. Ahmed al-shaara as the leader might work actually because he has led the rebellion and hence knows the welfare of people, but many people think that he would make rules for their religious customs and it would be unfair although he has promised but who knows when he might flip on them! option B is still confusing, as many refugees have still not returned to Syria, the election could be incomplete and not acceptable by the people.
    Al- Quaeda {founder Osama bin Laden} had alsa helped a lot in the war, people could allege that Shaara did that just to seek attention from humanity.

    Choosing a government for Syria is really necessary looking at all the turning points!
    Thank You

    1. Please make sure your whole comment is written entirely in your own words. We want to hear your opinions and not ideas that have been copied from elsewhere!

      1. I sincerely apologize.
        Actually, I just took reference from the video above mentioning almost all of the points which I have covered in my statement.
        I sincerely apologize; it was truly unintentional.
        I would take care of it from next time.

  • According to me in current situation option A where rebel leader ahmed al sharaa should remain the president of Syria for now is the correct decision.In current scenario Syria is in a very tough situation where all the decisions should be taken with great understanding. Al sharaa's leadership has brought some stability to the country .his consolidation of powers have also brought some unity in different factors and that is helping the country to regain its political and economical stability.changing leadership at such a crucial time may make the situation better but also has a possibility of making the conditions worse and more unstable and could risk plunging Syria back into bad condition.Also conducting elections at this may provoke people for more rebels .
    In future when the country becomes stable, election could and should be conducted.

  • If comparing the results of all the options, I feel that B is the way to go as if we follow through with option A and decided to let Ahmed Al Sharaa, there's no way to confirm if he will follow through with his promise and not just resort to making syria a state under dictatorship who is bound to enforce harsh religious laws on its citizen. If we go along with option C, the choosing of the stable country is going to be a little biased as expected, and since the head of the stable countries aren't syrian, they might overlook the values Syrian citizens want their leader to uphold. So in my opinion, after returning to a much more peaceful state, an election should be held at first priority, so that the citizens voices and demands are heard and answered by a leader who understands and cares about them.

  • From my point of view, the country should go with option C. It may feel wrong to let another country decide the fortune of Syria but I feel that Syrians are not mentally ready after all the conflicts, almost all of them are probably brainwashed and not ready to vote yet. A country with a good democracy can lead them and make Syria a country for 'people'. On the other hand, involving another country in the matters of Syria can lead to political problems. But again, it would be better for another country to choose a leader or handle the government issues of Syria right now. They already know how to manage things, run a country and govern people, so it would be more beneficial for Syria to depend on another country.

    1. I disagree with you i feel like the people could choose but other countries could support Syria since that countries is not Syria so they do not understand how they could feel and support them in ways they need it not the way that country needs it.

  • In my opinion, statement B is the fairest way to choose next leader. If Syrians want country based on democracy, they should hold an election and see what most of the people want. There is a problem in this point, because there are millions of Syrians who are all over the world and they don't have a chance for voting. However, this is the best solution for the country. If some other state gets to decide the leader of Syria, that would be totally unfair to people in Syria. Every citizen should choose what's the best for their country.

  • I believe that option C should take place. Option B is second most likely but it's impractical as 5 to 6 million people have become Asylum seekers and that is roughly a third of the country therefore it will be unthinkable to have a fair and proper election . Syria is an diverse country which will also implement the election as the main religion in Syria is Sunni Muslim and the Assad are Alawites Muslim meaning that the majority disliked the Assad beliefs including rights for females as he was a former member of the ISIS. Option A is most unlikely as Al- Sharaa has relocated to Russia and rebels have taken over but there is a fear that the rebels will become the next Taliban. I still believe option C is the best for the people of Syria even though it has its pros and cons, the cons are bigger countries like Turkey will make the rules for Syria and the pros are that there might be a fair ruler in Syria.

  • In my opinion C=another country with a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria seems best. I say this because I believe a country, such As the United Kingdom, should take the lead in determining Syria's future. Since the Assad regime left Ahmed al-Sharaa, who was once a part of ISIS, has taken control. Syrians have just endured a long civil war, and with them electing al-Sharaa to be in charge, they look like they might not be prepared to vote just yet, so another country should step in to make decisions for them. The UK, with its robust democratic system, would be well suited to help determine the path forward for Syria.

    1. What makes you say they the Syrian people might not be prepared to vote just yet?

  • For what I think in see, B is the best option in my opinion. Even though many people are probably going to vote for Ahmed Al-Sharaa, people are overjoyed in the moment and aren’t thinking correctly. And election should be held for everyone who is in the country and everyone who fled to other countries for safety. Another country should not be able to have a say in who the leader of a country will be because they are not the people who are living there to experience the aftermath of the choices they made. The people should have a chance to vote even if they vote for Ahmed Al-Sharaa.

    1. I really like your strategy of giving people who have fled the country the right to vote, and you make a persuaive point of people who do not live in that country not having to experience the aftermath of an election, which is true in in how a govnernment affects people's everyday lives. Can you think of any examples when people who live in different countries are affected by one country's election?

  • In my opinion the country should immediately hold an election to decide on the leader because I think that would quickly make a lot of people more peaceful and happier to know that they can decide their fate and who is gonna lead them for the next few years and would stop a lot of wars between the rebel groups.

  • From my point of view B is the best decision because people should have the right to decide who is their leader and who is the person that can change their life drastically. Is it could be a turning point for Syria if the president changed. Is a hard decision for the people from Syria. Many people are against him and should do anything to change the president.

  • I choose option B , because maybe Ahmed al - Sharaa doesn't want to remain the president of Syria.They should have democracy to vote for a new president if they want to.

  • I think that none of them is a good a answer because a lot of people from Syria went to another country because of the war so they shouldn't have a election for now. I think is the best for the country to have Ahmed al-Sharaa as a leader for some time and then when most of the people come back to Syria to have an election.

    1. Can you think of any pros and cons for your solution of waiting for people who have left the country to come back before holding an election?

  • In my opinion, answer B is the most relatable because even though Basshar Al-Assad has helped the country and it's population, many people are against him and don't want him as president.
    Even though the population of Syria has decreased in the past few years, many citizens still live there and want a new president. For over 50 years, the same family has ruled over Syria and people want changes, it could help with rebuilding the trust in the government, restoring democracy and legitimacy and ending authoritarian rule.

  • I consider option A being the most reliable one for now. Syria has been through a lot, and right now, I don't think they are in the best position for an election, as many Syrians have yet to return, so chosing a leader wouldn't be fair. In my opinion Ahmed al-Sharaa has a lot of potential as a leader since he has some expirience when it comes to leading, considering the fact that he lead his rebel group to victory. In conclusion, I consider Ahmed al-Sharaa being Syrias best chance at a new beginning.

  • In my opinion, option A is bad because I've learnt that most of the population does not like him, also, a rebel leader is way too inexperienced. Option C, being the worst one, that's because from my point of view a country should be independent. The particular reason for circumstance is that if we would have every country independent the world would live in more peace and harmony than before, leading to less causes for wars. Leading us to option B, the best option, due to the reason that if people have the free will to vote, it's on them if anything good or bad happens, the voters are also liable. It's not fair if the population, the people that have to live in the rules, don't get to choose them, their voices are not being heard, basically being silenced by the people they should have their trust in. All things considered, option B is the best choice.

    1. You explain your opinion on each option really clearly. You say that voters are liable for the outcomes of a democratic election. Do you think voters who do not vote for an incumbent party can still be held responsible? For example, lots of people in the US did not personally vote for Donald Trump, do you still think they bare some repsonsibility for their governments actions?

  • I think that the country should immediately hold an election to decide on a new leader because if they choose the person that they want and put though in it will probably end the war or some of the rebel groups fighting, if the new president will probably think of some new ways that in a few years the war will decrease and the population will feel safer in their own country again after a lot of years. They have to put a lot of thought in choosing the next president because he can do a lot of good stuff and maybe do something with some other presidents that have a lot of power.

  • I strongly believe that another country with a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria. First of all, the current president of Syria is apart of a terrorist group, already showing that we can't rely on him. In addition, if the country holds and election to pick a leader, do people really believe that it'll be fair? We already know that the past leader of Syria put people in prison and tortured them in the past for speaking out against the leader. How will we know for sure if the new president of Syria won't do the same? Syrians have been through enough and shouldn't have to go through it again and repeat history. This is why I believe a more stable country like the U.K or others should decide what happens to Syria.

    1. You make a good argument, dynamic_dusk—but it can be a real problem when the people of a country feel that decisions about their lives are being made by outsiders, especially if things don't go entirely to plan. What about some outside help, from countries like the UK and others, to provide Syrians themselves the chance to make a robust, democratic decision?

      1. I understand where your coming from and your perspective on the situation as some citizens in Syria might be upset with decisions being made by another country as for instance, with the Israeli and Palestine conflict, when other countries tried to help out they made it worse. Having some help outsiders help is a good way to try and fix the problems going on in Syria. However, we also need to keep in mind that most Syrians aren't in the right head set as they as just blinded by happiness as they leader that treated them badly has just gotten replaced. Although, this doesn't mean that their new leader is good. Meaning they need help with making decisions.

  • I think B is right because they have been treated badly in the past . Also it is there homes and they should be able to live the way.They have gone throw so much and need to be able to live a life that they pick . I know that over 6 m Syrian people have left but it is there life.

  • I think that option B is the most appropriate option as Syrian citizens should have the right to choose their future president or leader if they don’t get that choice it is unfair and unjust. For the supporters of Ahmed al-Sharaa he should be included in the election as well as other candidates.

  • Option A...
    I have seen many people who are choosing option B and they are right because it should be the citizen's choice to choose their leader. But , what I have seen is that most of the syrians want their leader to be Ahemad Al-Sharaa and holding an election would be just a waste of time and money. They should instead use this money and time to rebuild the damages caused in war , like creating better healthcare and educational facilities for the citizens and the upcoming generations of Syria.

  • Due to the displacement of Syrian citizens I feel that option B may do more harm than good if done immediately but can be beneficial when essential infrastructure and citizen placement are repaired after a short while. However, option A could be used as a temporary solution whilst the country starts recovering from long-term economic loss but effective checks and balances need to be put in place to prevent any possible dictatorship actions being taken by Al-Sharaa until he is either re-elected or not elected back into government. This is where option C becomes slightly more viable but may become dangerous if the countries set as authority decide to take advantage of Syria's difficult circumstances for their own benefit. As a result, option C may be the safest if 'stateless' organisations such as the UN and the WTO get involved rather than other countries that may either be struggling too hard to realistically provide support or that may attempt to claim Syria as their own territory.

    My classmate earlier brought up a useful point regarding this topic in context to Option A; due to the scale of how many millions of Syrians were displaced only a small fraction of the population left in Syria have properly agreed to have Al-Sharaa specifically as their leader. Meaning that the rebel group's recent acquisition of power does not reflect the political wants of the majority of the Syrian people. Which in turn could risk the actions of the Syrian political system going forward not reflecting the values of the Syrian population.

  • The country should hold an election to decide on a new leader which is option B. The facts are that even though that many people left Syria,there still should be an election for those who were left behind. An election is the chance for people to let their voices be heard. The people who are left living in this country should have the right to decide who leads them. Also,without a leader to help Syria, rebel groups could cause anarchy through Syria. The current leader could remain in charge if citizens voted for him.He should not just be allowed to become the new leader of Syria without any formal election process. This is why the best option to go with is option B.

  • In my opinion,I feel like the most fair answer is option B.I feel it is fair because Syrians should have a say in who should be the president.Others who think it's unfair to those who've left Syria think Ahmed should just become the president.Even though it's unfair to those who left,it's more unfair to those who want to decide for themselves who the president should be. It is always possible that Ahmed doesn't keep his word and may be untrue to the promises he made to the Syrian people.This is why,in my opinion,I feel like option B would be the best option for Syrians.

  • I believe that B is the best option which is to hold an election to decide a new leader.The reason why I believe it is B is because it would be fair for the people to decide to choose a new leader.It wouldn't be right for other people besides the citizens of Syria to decide who should lead them. Afterall, it is the citizens of Syria who have to live under whatever regime comes next.Furthermore, the current leader, al-Sharaa, may not be trustworthy to keep his promise.To gather all the information, it is best to hold an election to decide a new leader.

  • I think the country should be in charge of who is the leader is because the know more about their country more than the other country's. I also feel that it is fair and it will be equal. I a different country chooses then it might just cause an other war against Syria and the other country. I also think that Ahmed al-Sharaa should be allowed to be the leader of Syria because some people might want to vote for him, some people might think that Ahmed al-Sharaa is a good leader for Syria.

  • i agree it very sad how the Syrians are surviving and people say that the goverment is more importent when the people of Syria and some times the govement could have other ideas that could hurt more people which could affect the country and they can break into civil war which could spread to other countries and affect the people which would spread to the goverment and spread more which then increase more and more while people could kill each other than the population would go down and down more.

  • i soon think that Bashar Assad will get kicked out of Russia but then a civil war could break out and that would be very bad and affect more countries.

  • A because since Assad's regime is ended and someone is ready take charge A, also Ahmed al-Sharaa is the main one of the Rebel group the exact group that tried to take down Assad so no one would have to suffer the same words that Ahmed al-Sharaa promised to the people and no matter what ethnicity neither who they are known for no one would suffer.

  • I think B because some people might not want Ahmed al-Sharaa to be the president and it is not fair if another country with a strong democracy decides what happens next to Syria and how they live. The reason for this is because they haven’t experienced war in their country so it is not fair to tell them what to do. Also if they do this, it might start a fight meaning another war.

  • I think B because then it gives the public a voice and it’s more fair since they get to choose who they think is right. But then it still might be unfair as so many Syrians have fled the country to escape the civil war. But if they have a vote then I think that the Syrians will just vote for Ahmed al Sharaa so I don’t see why they just let him rule immediately.

  • The option I strongly consider to be correct is B. This is because in terms of voicing each individual's own opinion and deciding on a dependable and strong leader through an election is a great way to proceed with the reconstruction of Syria. Option A would not be in the best interest of the population of Syria, considering that Ahmed al-Sharaa, who has a past record of being imprisoned as well as being a terrorist with a million dollar award for his capture, isn't a very safe or sincere candidate as a leader of Syria. How would you feel if a criminal was a part of your leadership board?

  • All of these responses bring their own drawbacks.
    A is a choice that represents virtually a coup detat, which could lead to other countries following suit with hostile violent takeovers, and it is a risky way to hand power to someone, whether or not the motives were for good or otherwise.
    B is hard to accomplish due to the displacement of millions of syrian migrants currently unavailable to be contacted for their thoughts.
    C is effectively handing control of the government to a larger controlled government which could lead to syrias current state being taken advantage of in the wrong hands.
    The most realistic option currently is A, although Ahmeds rught to power could be dubious, its better to let the country handle itself, in its current state, as the risk of a larger country taking advantage of syria in its current state is too large considering warfare also occuring in other countries

  • From my point of view, I believe that option A, Ahmed al-Sharaa should be the one to be president. To explain why I didn't choose B or C, if we consider that many refugees are away from their country, some won't be able to take part in the election. This will deny them the opportunity to choose what they think is best for their country, causing inequity and leaving many refugees in the dark. Furthermore, Syria is in a state of turmoil. This regime has caused distress, confusion, and perplexity. So hosting an election might not be the best choice, although they need a new government, their suffering might cause desperation, choosing the first glimmer of hope. Now, having another country with a strong democracy interfere shouldn't happen either. Only the people of Syria, only the people suffering from this regime, and only the people who are affected by it should be the one whose voices are heard. They know their problem first hand compared to another country who only hears what they want to. Let's take for instance the outside interference of the Israel-Palestine war, after hearing the lesson and all the news around this war, the U.S.'s along with others interference only caused backlash for this war. To conclude, Ahmed al-Sharaa is the best choice. He has helped overthrow this regime and promise the Syrian people peace regardless of ethnicity and gender. Although some say that he may just make promises that he might not keep, the same goes for anyone else running in an election. Candidates can promise what they want, but Ahmed al-Sharaa has already helped Syria.

  • I think that b would be the most beneficial option because they were never really able to vote for their leader so they really weren't able share their idea of an ideal government because if they were heard speaking against the leaders rule they were jail or worse. B can also positively affect the citizens mental health because if they chose their ideal leader the rules ingrained in their brains from the old leader would slowly fade and the disappear giving them a piece of mind. This just goes to show how citizens being able to choose their leader helps their mental and possibly affect the amounts of people who refugees.

  • I think that b would be the most beneficial option because they were never really able to vote for their leader so they really weren't able share their idea of an ideal government because if they were heard speaking against the leaders rule they were jail or worse. B can also positively affect the citizens mental health because if they chose their ideal leader the rules ingrained in their brains from the old leader would slowly fade and the disappear giving them a piece of mind. This just goes to show how citizens being able to choose their leader helps their mental and possibly affect the amounts of people who refugees.

  • I believe a country with a strong and stable democracy should be monitoring and determining what the future looks like for Syria. My classmates and I debated on this subject, and many including myself, brought up how not only may elections not be fair -- such as only one runner, which would be no point to vote -- but also how we don't believe Syrian people may be the best to decide what they want for their country. we came to this conclusion due to the thought that since they may be overjoyed with having a new president, they wont exactly put in proper thoughts in forms of elective activities. Therefore, I believe C would make since for my standing of my opinion.

  • I would definitely go with option B because breaking it down A states that Ahmed al sharaa should be the president but there’s the fact that he became the president because he was the rebel leader which makes it obvious that all rebels are on his side but not because of his special qualities .For option C if another country takes over Syria so first of all which country and is that and is the country completely reliable? Of course not because the country might have its own way of functioning which might not work in Syria and another country might plan a conspiracy behind and sabotage the development efforts of Syria. Comparatively I would go with B but I cannot because it’s not possible as 5.5 million citizens are out of country making it impossible to conduct elections.
    So what’s my answer ? I would say that the Syria refugees should go for counselling which would give them a little peace and till that the new president al sharaa should be allowed to rule . Seeing the country a little stable refugees might return and then elections should be counducted or I would suggest digital elections via a website or form and the person can only open it one time through their identity .

  • We believe that option B is the best option because a democratic vote allows every citizen to have a say in who leads and governs them. Whilst we acknowledge that there may be dangers to this approach, it is the fairest way to ensure that the Syrian people have a say over their own destiny.

  • B - We believe B is the best option as the people who are affected by these issues should be the ones to decide who rules over them. It is good the immediate threat has been removed but it is still uncertain how the new leaders will proceed. giving the country the option to vote in a new leader seem the most fair way to move forward as a nation.

  • I would say that option C makes sense but rather a country taking control it should be an independent organisation that has no intention in gaining land or power. For example, when Caricom helped Haiti in 2024 during it's issues it ensured that they weren't abusing the country whilst it was in a weak position. I would be sceptical to say that powerful countries such as America won't abuse their power if they were acquired to help Syria rebuild itself. Option A would not be democratic as the Rebel leader was only supported by a smaller group of people, even if he helped citizens be free from Assad it doesn't justify his right to become a leader because of this. Some citizens may feel that they aren't listened to again due to them not having control of their government and who is within it. As well as, that Ahmed-al Sharaa may not be politically/democratically positive for the country as the citizens haven't seen him as a campaigning candidate. Option B would be difficult as the country is in a state that wouldn't be able to hold a reasonable election that follows procedures. It would be denying the people that have been released from prison the right environment to place an accurate vote as some of them do not even know who they are, what their name is and their family. Immediately holding an election would lead to a very unstable outcome as the country needs to be somewhat established to hold a successful election.

  • I think that the people of Syria should be able to vote for themselves who is in charge of there own country and that other country's shouldn't be able to choose for them and that the government should start repairing building like schools and hospitals and sending in medical needs for the people who need it or at least if its so bad send the people to out of the country hospitals for like broken bone or something bad that needs ergant assistances.

  • I would say that the new leader of Syria looks really threatening, but also looks like a good person, and I am hoping he can make agreements with different country's so they will be a safe place once again.

  • I think Syria should hold elections to choose a new leader. This way, the Syrian people get to decide their own future, and it's a fair and democratic way to do things.
    Having someone else, like Ahmed al-Sharaa, stay in power without being chosen by the people might not be the best idea. And relying on another country to make decisions for Syria isn't ideal either - it's Syria's future, after all!!!
    Let's give the Syrian people the power to choose their own leader. It's time for a fresh start!

    Thankyou

  • I think the people should rise and take over their country because this is the time they need to work harder and make change on their own they can start from finding little way of providing their needs from that level they think of how to repair the damaged properties and with determination and courage they change make unbelievable changes and if they never give up more than expected will happen.

  • In my views, Syria should immediately hold an election, even though millions of Syrians are out of the country. This is because the natives who are in the country, their lives cannot be risked any more. The ones who have left are now happily settled in their new homes and have embarked furthermore. Since, the ones in countries have not been able to evade, they should at least get a chance to elect their new leader. This would be beneficial for Syria, as Ahmed al- Sharaa the new rebel leader would also not think of having a dictatorship regime, and the country would further not be dependent single-handedly. To make it democratic and save the lives of millions of natives in Syria at present, it's important to take the decision of immediate elections.

  • Ive heard on news channels that the Syrian rebels that have rebellled against Bashr Al Assad were backed by Turkey so if Option C were to take place Turkey could heavily influence the voting so much that Syria could be a Turkish Puppet state.

  • Option A may be suitable for Syria as Ahmed al-Sharaa was the leader of the rebel group, HTS. They wanted to remove al-Assad from power and end his rule due to his regime being oppressive. If al-Sharaa distanced himself from extremist groups (Al-Qaeda and DAESH), he could be worthy of being in power and to prove himself as a true leader, especially as he strongly opposed the government. However, given his past, it is hard to know if he would lead democratically, taking a lot of proving himself to show that he has moved on and wants to change things for the better.
    Option B can be very problematic. There are over 6 million Syrians displaced abroad and millions more internally displaced, and so it would be impossible for an election to be fair. Many Syrians living outside the country/in refugee camps would not be able to participate and it would not be representative of the whole population. Given that al-Sharaa is already in a position of leadership and has expressed his desire to prove himself, it might be more reasonable to give him a trial period. This would allow him to show if he can lead fairly and without corruption like the previous government.
    I don't think option C is very strong as demonstrated by the Israel/Palestine war. Many countries have tried to intervene over many decades, and no attempt has yet been successful. The UN failed, but mainly because they were seen as biased. This shows how difficult it is to create solutions as those on the outside may not actually understand what is happening on the inside.
    I think that the best solution would be option A.

  • i think Syria should hold an election because of everything syriann people have been through they should be able to decide who will rule their country. Eventhough some people say that there aren't a lot of people living in syria right now they should have election eventhoungh here aren't a lot of people.

  • I see that the long-term right decision is B. The country is in a weak state with only a prime minister who manages everything, so I see that we should start a democracy and start an election for the best president who will manage things with the prime minister. If the country is too weak to start an election now, they could wait until the economy improves until starting an election. So basically, I am agreeing to option A, but not permanently, only until the country improves its state and until everyone says that they are ready to set up an election and vote.

  • According to me, I have mixed feelings about the two options A and B. While option A states that Ahmed al Sharaa, should remain as the president, which I do think is wrong and Option B which states that There should be an immediate election held in the country.

    First we shall observe both the options. While the rebel leader remaining the president would be unfair but Syria right now, is not stable enough to hold such a large election. So what they should do, in my opinion is to allow Ahmed al Sharaa's governance till the country is STABLE and then hold elections. If Mr. Ahmed denies then immediate elections is the only way but if he doesn't then all Syrians can have a fair chance at putting up their opinions.

    So, in this way, Syria can both recover as well as become democratic in a peaceful and secure way.
    THANK YOU

  • Me personally I think that none of them are right I am going to make this one thing d. I wonder who else thinks that Syria shouldn't even have a leader. Syria has experienced the good and bad of what the president has been doing. The people don't know the rebels so they cant trust the rebels. Reply if you agree with me and if you don't tell me why

  • I agree with C because Syria is not stable so how do you expect to make a decision on that topic.Plus B can't be done because a lot of people fled Syria when the war started.A also can't be possible because we don't know what Ahmed al-Sharaa's intentions are.

    1. Hi nice_forest, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. Can you see any downside to another country taking the decision on Syria's behalf? Someone might argue it's important that Syrians themselves are involved in the process. How would you respond to that point?

  • I think that C=Another country with a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria .C because we don`t know if Ahmed al-Sharaa is good or bad yet.

    1. I agree with you powerful_nectarine because A what if Ahmed al-Sharaa strict and harms Syria even more and B what if they choose a bad leader or a worse leader and the country gets destroyed. c because they have to have a stable leader for the meanwhile.

  • From my point of view, I don't agree with any of the choices. I think that since over 6.3 million Syrian's are in asylum then if they do an election immediately stating choice B most of Syria's population would't be voting which is not fair . For choice A, I believe since Ahmed al Sharaa wasn't the choice everyone liked because they never knew if he would lie about what he said wouldn't be a good idea. For choice C, A different country choosing the new future wouldn't be a good idea for Syrian's because Syria was the one who witnessed the war for 12 years. Syria seems unstable also for choosing their future because if its been going on for 12 years its best if they all just go to asylum and eventually just move where they are inside asylum. This is from my point of view of what I think is best for Syria.

    1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, smart_mango. That is very interesting analysis of the three options. You seem to end by suggesting that all Syrians should seek asylum. Have I understood you correctly? If so, can you think of any reasons why Syrians might not want to leave their country behind?

  • I choose B because we don't know what the president might do he might be more strict over the country and he might be aggressive towards other nations. he also might kick people out of the country, threaten people against him, cause another civil war, and maybe even be the reason of a collapse in Syria

  • I pick C because they might think that its bad for their country but if the country next door aka Russia never went into war is good, because they have a strong democracy. Syria has gone into wars because of the strict leader that ruled Syria. So they might have to get a country to make their decisions since they aren't a bad country. If they do an election people think its good to know who will control Syria but they don't know what decisions the leader has done in the past so they wouldn't trust anyone to be a leader at all so an election isn't a good idea. If they let Ahmed al-sharaa remain president he might make strict religious rules in the future so that wouldn't be good either.

  • In my opinion, I don't agree with any of the options, i think the Syrians should wait a few months to see if Ahmed al-Sharaa is a good leader before electing a new leader. That would let them know If he is good or if he lied before electing a new leader. Also, while they are seeing if he lied they could aid the Syrians who got hurt or is sick.
    By aiding them they could help fix the country. Even though millions of the population is gone they could still fix the country and possibly bring the population back which is unlikely but can happen!

  • My answer is c.Why because Syria is unstable.They don't have places to vote. Also they don't know if there is a new leader Ahmed al-Sharaa. The leader could start another war.If this does happen the way there country is the country might not be able to recover.But if they went to a neighboring countries.Like Russia this would help they build and get back to how it supposed to be.

    1. Hi brave_lobster, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. Option C would take the decision out of the hands of Syrians themselves. Is that OK, or do you think there is a downside?

  • In my opinion option c is the best for me really,I only say that because if not even their country is stable enough I don't really think they are stable enough them selves to put it up to a vote.

  • In my opinion, I disagree with all the options. I disagree with them all because we(in general)don't know if Ahmed is good or bad. He may have bad intentions to hurt or imprisoned other people. Also, he fought to get his position now so even though he says he will do good things to the country he may not. So, I don't agree with any of them.

  • In my opinion I think that C is the best answer because if the country is not stable they might not pick a good leader to rule the county and I think that if they get the wrong person as leader they could be more sad and mad and if the leader is worse than the last one .

  • Ahmed al-Sharra, the rebel leader has been fighting for the country n a brutal way. I think we can trust him fully the way he has been acting. Whatever he does, he is going to pick warriors like him for the government. People who we can trust and know for the country of Syria

    1. Thank you for contributing, jazzed_apple. I can see that there would be good things about having "warriors" in charge. Might there also be bad things about that?

  • I disagree with them because, they should do a election about who they want as the leader of syria.Because we do not know if the leader is a bad guy like the others

  • In my opinion I think they should do B. They might not actually know Ahmed al-Sharaa and he could be a bad person. Also, if they let another country do it, it might be a bad idea because the advice they give could only be good for that country only. Another reason is that, I feel like everyone in that country should have a say in who can be the government just in case of safety reasons. This is just my opinion and what I feel should be done as these people just got out of war and now needs a new leader that they can trust, depend on, and someone that can help.

  • Personally me I choose B we don't know if he is good or bad.Some people think he is a new start but others think he is bad for the country.So they might need to vote just to be safe for the people that live there.No one knows what he could do to the country or even people.Who knows what he could be planning or doing to Syria.I hope Syria is going to be okay.I also hope Assad isn't going to come back.He did a lot of bad things to Syria and I hope the person who scared Assad away isn't going to be strict.

  • From my point of view, I agree with none because option A could put the city in more danger because you don't know what Ahmed has for the country to do in the future, he might start another war that could go on for more than 12 years. And for option B, they cannot vote because during the war, about 6 million people fled to Russia because it's the closest country to Syria, and since most of the people fled to Russia that leads voting not to be able to conduct. And lastly for C it states " Another country with a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria." And that could lead to problems because they could make Syria do things that the people who live there doesn't agree with. So, to conclude my point of view, this is why I agree with none because none of them will be able to help Syria thrive.

  • I think option C is correct. This is because bigger, more stable countries can help Syria regrow its country. It wouldn't make any sense to vote, because over 13 million people fled Syria because of war. If they still decided to vote, the poll would be unfair. If we chose to let Ahmed al-Sharaa be the current leader, we might be in trouble. Ahmed promises to make Syria a place where people are not judges regardless of your gender, race, and religion. But we are not sure if his promises are true, because he would just probably keep on saying that until he gets named leader. Then, he would probably make laws that are the exact opposite. If we let Ahmed be the leader or choose to vote, Syria just might get worse.

  • In my opinion,I do not agree with any option A B or C. Right now we are going to talk about A. The reason I don't agree with A is because Ahmed al-Sharaa is just a rebel from no where we cant trust people we don't know truly so why him?Now lets talk about B. The reason I don't agree with B is because over 5.5 million people left Syria. If you leave Syria to get help and you come back and there was a voting it seems unfair and rude much. Now C. The reason I don't agree with C is because if you let a different country take over Syria what if they don't know their backstory? If they didn't know you shouldn't let the country take care of them.And another reason even if they did know Syria's backstory they don't know what they have witnessed so it doesn't make sense. In conclusion I don't think any of the options are good to pick.

  • In my opinion I'll pick letter C because the new leader might be like Trump when Trump said, "I will make America better." but instead he made it worse for the Mexicans and hispanic we don't know if he will be like Trump or some of the other past presidents of America. Also if people dislike the past president of Syria and do not know about anything of Ahmed al-Sharaa how would they know that he is not bad nor good.

  • In my opinion, I don't agree with any choices from the above. but if I had to choose only from the above, then I think choice B is the best choice, but there is still a concern about the leader chosen. As there are many rebel groups existing in Syria . So, if there was an election and a member if a rebel group was chosen , then perhaps the same scenario that happened with Syria during the rule of the Assad family , which was a very strict and unfair rule, could happen again.

    Instead, I think the rebel organizations that are not only existing in Syria, but in most arab countries should be not given the opportunity to be qualified as candidates in an election, as some rebel groups like " daesh" are very strict and could cause harmful things to innocent citizens.

  • In my opinion, I think that the best choice is C because the country is in a very unstable situation. The country is living moments of uncertainty because of the end of the war, so if a more stable country makes that decision they could guide the country until it's strong again. In choice B it will be very hard to have a good government because half of the people that used to live in the country escaped to other countries to be refugees, but they can't come back because there is no infrastructure. Elections now would be unfair because people who escaped can't make a decision because they don't have all the information.

  • I think it'is the option B beacause it's a decision of the countrry to chose the new leader. It's not the duty of an other country

  • I believe, the people should have the power that's why i chose, Option B. Syria should be a full blown democracy, like most western countries, giving the people of Syria the power to choose their leaders. This keeps it fair and prevents corrupted powers from taking over. word.

  • I think that B is right as the people should be able to choose their president as you should be able to have a fair way of choosing who is in charge . However many people may disagree and go with A as he is the leader of the rebels so he probably is the one that freed them . But this may start another civil war as the old president was strict and not chosen by the people that is probably what started the war . You could also say C as then someone who has a managed country can decide and help . Other people may disagree as in the Gaza and Israel war other countries tried to help but ended up making it wors than it was . PLEASE COMMENT ! ;)

    1. Your reply is very considerate, it seems like you think an election would be the fairest decision. Why do you think elections are so fair?

      1. I'm not sure about this because in the UK voting is fair but in the USA it has a different less fair way of voting . Unlike the UK in the USA is the most votes in the biggest states meaning not every body is heard this also why many people disagreed with the alection last year . But the UK has a fair way which is the most votes win this is a fair a simple way . So yes I agree as long as it is the way we do it in the UK .

  • I agree with C. This is because in Syria over 6.3 million people are not in the country because of the war. So I think a country with a strong democracy and an excellent leader should decide what happens next for Syria because the other country that doesn't have a civil war happening because they will not have as much stress as the Syrian citizens meaning that they can make a good choice knowing that the Syrian citizens have hope and peace.

    1. I agree because... you are correct 👍 about Syria being uncontrollable but like kids 👧 would they want some say in what they do because even if it is a safer decision it is there country to decide what happens to so they should choose . However it is a safer choice as Syria has shown to be uncontrollable/unresponsible in its actions against its citizens and government. 🙏 please comment below 👇

  • I am in favour of the B option because nobody knows the best of each other than citizens, so there is no risk about choosing a wrong leader.Like India, there should be elections every 5 years. They know what they had suffered in the last few years regarding the civil wars. Hence, they have learnt to live in harmony and accept their leader. After suffering this no body wants to be a bad leader because they had known the impact of this. This might be that because of a good leader and development Syria might become a developed country and millions of people will come to live and with historical monuments there might be tourists which would increase the revenue.Even more development would be done and Syria can be advanced in technology and use AI in their county.This is what Syria was before with a bad leader but a new Syria with a bright future of children and a new leader. At the end I would convey that leader is because of people and you never know ehat would happen in future.

  • I think B because it would be the fairest one because there leader might be worse than the last one

  • I think B because it would be a fair way for the country to decide where as C could cause other conflicts around the world and some people are not happy about A. I really don’t think it is fair for other countries to make decisions for them. I think an election would be a fair and quick way to decide on a decision most people are happy with. Not everyone is always going to be happy.

  • I think having an election and allowing the people of Syria choose their next leader is the best solution. But I also know that would be really hard because there are a lot of Syrians refugees outside of the country. I think option B is the best because maybe they can find a way of making people vote from outside the country. If they can´t, I still think its the fairest option because the people of the country should have the right to decide what to do. I also think option C is very risky because if a country takes care of Syria and helps them, most likely they would want something in return and that can cause another war or a massive debt for Syria and I believe that would be very damaging in the long run.

  • Well, personally I think none of the above should be imposed. From my point of view I believe that an interim president should be in charge of the country until things calm down. When that happens I think there should be held elections so that the people decide their next leader. The reason I suggested the interim president was so that the people calm down, clear their minds and be able to vote without any distractions that can bias their votes.

  • I think that option A is the worst out of the three, as I really believe in the saying the goes "when someone does something they will do it again" and this applies especially to Ahmed al-Sharaa. I do not get the point to let someone who is an ex terrorist rule a country and supposingly each and every one of the residents and have power on them. In my view this could possibly lead to very strict rules (especially religious ones) and an oppresive government. On the other hand, option B is not that bad but we right now find Syrians in a position not ready for ellections, and being after a long war this is not their first priority, as they are still recovering from it. I think that if this happens, it may result in the wrong choice being made. Lastly, although option C does not seem ideal, it is the best among the others for me, as a stable country with a strong democracy can decide with a clearer mind what is the best for Syria. However, the choice of the country must be done very carefully, because if the chosen counrty has bad intentions or decides based on their own benefits out of the situation, it can cause a massive desaster.

  • According to my point of view, option B is absolutely not okay, because if they conduct elections , hastened and in a hurry burry mode , many people will not justify their decisions, what is right and wrong. They might vote the wrong person like Assads and get into the trap of trouble, violence. Also , in Syria, if 50% of people supports and votes the family of Assads and the 50% does not vote means , there are more chances, that the supporters of Assads might attack and fight with the people against . This leads to a new conflict and violence in nature. And, I agree with the option 3 because the people from other countries can create a mass awareness about the violent created by Assads and the impacts. If the people from Syria, understand the truth, their mind set will be changed and this helps to take correct decision. If the country russia in some war, india will provide weapons to Russia for their safety.like that, other countries can come to help and support Syria,and that will grow the friendship of the countries too....

  • The situation in Syria is still not clear the question that should be discussed should Syrian people choose their own president or what should happen ?
    In my opinion Syrians should choose their ''own'' president, so my answer will be ''B''.
    In order to achieve this step, we must first form a Transitional Government for a temporary period to carry out a set of tasks.
    -Conduct a national dialogue that includes all segments of society.
    -Start rebuilding the infrastructure.
    -Complete ceasefire.
    -Try to integrate all segments of society.
    -Encourage Syrian refugees outside the country to return to their homeland.
    After implementing all these points, we must begin planning to choose the next president.

  • In my opinion, I believe that the rebel leader "Ahmed al-Sharaa" should have control over the recently liberated country, since as of right now, it's in no state for a vote due to the majority of the population being biased in it (If one was to happen, the result would most likely be the rebel leaders, since the Syrians are in High spirits from their victory and eager to vote their "Freedom fighters". At the same time, the political parties are not formed and many of them are missing key elements. Also, I believe that OPTION C is to be excluded as well since an involvement of another country would only complicate the matter. Even tho i'm not a fan of Ahmed al-Sharaa, i believe that he could lead the country for a short period of time (max 2 years) until official political parties are formed and the residents excitement for their independence dies down.

  • I think A might be the best option, the disadvantage of Ahmed al-Sharaa becoming their new leader is that al- Sharaa might become a dictator or he might become a a wonderful leader and will care about his people. It all depends on whether he can fulfil his promises or they were all blatant lies. Option B might be the worst option, with 6 million refuges and 7 million idp. An election won't capture the full vote of the entire country, it might even be difficult to arrange an election in the first place.
    Option C might not be the best option either ,if another country choose it won't be fair because it doesn't have the opinion of the people who will actually be affected by it.

  • I've thought this out thoroughly, and I think the best choice to proceed forward would be option C. Here's my reasoning: Option A: Although the Syrians were celebrating Ahmed al-Sharaa's victory against the previous rulers, we barely know anything about this guy, all we know is that he overthrew the former president. Some people may agree that it takes a lot of courage and leadership to do such an act, however, there is a distinct line between being a GOOD leader, and being a good LEADER. Yes, he does have compelling leadership, however, were not sure what he will do with that leadership. Another thing is, I've done research and figured out that he was a former terrorist, and even the United States listed him as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist", leaving a $10 million dollar reward for anyone who captured him. Who knows what else he could cause to the citizens of Syria if he already has a rough and harmful past? Do we really want what happened to Syria again? Option B: Most Syrians have fled their home, seeking refuge in other countries because of war, leaving less Syrians there to voice their opinion. Also, if Ahmed al-Sharaa sees people voting against them, he could throw them in jail. However, I think that a country with a good and stable democracy will be able to make a good choice on who should be president because even if Ahmed al-Sharaa gets mad and ends up attacking, at least the Syrians will have a stable country with a good military force on their side.

  • For me option B is the most possible option that could be done. This is because people should have the rights to decide the leader of the country. There will be milions of Syrians who will vote and that will give the results of an equal decision. As for Ahmed as-Sharaa who is now the president, I feel like is wrong for him being the president because he was the leader of HTS and HTS was apart of the 2024 Syrian opposition offensives that cause a lot of issues. No matter what, Syrians should be the one who does the voting for the leader of the country, it can't be done by a country with a strong democracy. This is because Syrians have the rights to do the voting and if another country does it, what's the use of the Syrians rights? It's going to be useless, people there are going to feel useless because they can't even use their own voice.

  • To be truthful I don't really know what would be best for Syria. Option A is out of the question. Option B would not be strategically possible. Over 5 million Syrians are not in their country to have a say in the election. As well as many Syrians may feel obligated to vote for Ahmad Al-Sharaa because he ended the Asaad reign and helped them get free. Doing that would just be a bad choice. Option C would also not really be good. There are countries that may be STABLE but the citizens may not like the laws and rules they have. If that country were to rule over Syria who knows what would happen! However If I had to choose, I think the best option would be for Syria to get their country stable before heading of to choosing what kind of government that will be established. Hopefully Syria Will become an AMAZING country.

  • In my opinion, option A is a double edged sword. Strongman leaders always are.
    Especially after a power vacuum of such size is left without a somewhat parochial approach. I cannot say as I have limited knowledge about al-Sharaa outside of his involvement with Jihadist groups.
    Option C is the worst one, the abstract idea of "a strong democracy" is inherently a slippery slope and can lead to the rise of anti and pro foreign influence factions. This could potentially lead to a new civil war.
    Option B, with all its flaws, like the displacement of about 6 million Syrian people across the world and the cost to allow them all to vote still feels like the only good option. It may be a bit naive to think that everybody will be able to vote but, if most European countries can organize elections for their diaspora througuh consulates and embassies then, in my opinion, Syria can too.

  • Hi, as how my classroom session was conducted the situation of Syria it's at the turning point but also more than half a million people have left the country forcefully, then if the election was happened the people who gone from Syria when they returns here they may get disappointment because if they were in Syria and voted, then leader might be changed so it is advisable that other friendly country of Syria choses a leader for a while for recovering Syria after that asking the people who were forcefully gone out from the country to go to Syria after that the election can be happen so I stick with "3"

  • A, I believe that Al-shara is the best leader for Syria, I think that if someone else were to take control of the power vaccum it could lead to mass violence from major terrorist organisations like the Houthi's. I believe that if the Syrians were to establish a central authority it would be beneficial as it would allow for the Syrians to be ruled by their own people.

  • I believe that all options are wrong at this moment in time. Option A has the potential to become extremely negative as wartime leaders are not necessarily the best peacetime leaders, as seen with the tories and labour in Britain after WWII. There is also the possibility that Ahmed al-Sharaa, who has former connections to groups such as Al-Qaeda, may turn out to have a tyrannical regime similar to al-Assad's, albeit religiously aligned with the Sunnis in the Middle East as opposed to the Shias. Option B can be both good and bad as it represents the most equal and fair option. However, the country is extremely unstable, and it would be easy to tamper with and rig election results. Option C is objectively bad as the regional powers surrounding Syria (Iran, Turkey, Israel and Saudi) all have vested interests within Syria. Israel controls the Galen Heights, Turkey controls Northern Syria and are engaged in small skirmishes with the Kurdish YPG who fight for their own freedom, while Saudi seeks to expand it's anti-Iranian relationships in the region, and Iran would seek to maintain or at least lessen the damage inflicted against it's alliance in the Middle East.

  • I don't think that any of the options here are good. They all have different risks that could lead to further destabilisation of Syria and benefits that could lead to a stable government and a promising future for Syria. For example, option A which would give power to Ahmed al-Sharaa, has a big risk of giving power to somebody who will not keep their promise for equality and will restart the civil war in Syria. On the other hand, Option A also has the potential to give power to somebody who will keep promises, rebuild the country and bring peace to the region. We can also see option B as an example of this. An election to decide who gains power in Syria could lead to a more balanced government. However, there is no guarantee that these elections will be fair due to the 6 million people displace by the conflict. I feel like Syria is just in a bad spot right now and none of these options seem great.

  • personally, I think that option B should be picked and start an election immediately for many reasons. Some reasons why is because Syria is currently in disorder and should find someone to lead the country as soon as possible. Furthermore, letting the country's people vote for the leader gives the opportunity for better candidates other than Ahmed al-Sharaa. While there may no be a lot of people currently in Syria to vote, they can introduce international voting for refugees taken into asylum. I think option C has potential to lead the country for the better but all of the stable countries are interested in taking over Syria. They may not make the best choices for the sake of the country but instead new laws that benefits them only

  • I respect everyones opinion but according to me option B should be taken into action because many of the common people not want Ahmed Al-Sharaa as their leader due to their own personal opinions. So there should be held an election so that people can choose their own leader as a democracy and everyone should get opportunity to cast their own votes. Also this would help the common people to believe that they have chosen their own government and the leader so that there would be no misconceptions. Somewhere it will give right to the common people to make decisions because of the leader doesn't takes decisions in favour of the people it's quite obvious that people would rebel.

    1. I disagree with mesmerising situation because around 6.3 million Syrians are out of the country ,so I think either option A or C should be taken into action.


      The reason I think option C should be taken into action is because even though everyone should have a choice(like option B suggests),they do not want another civil war and a very democratic country with an good leader could help them pave a path to a new beginning.

      But I also think that Ahmed al-Sharaa should be president because I do not think that he would be strict and come up with harsh religions rules because he has been campaigning for freedom from these terms against the Assad family so why would he go back to these rules.
      memorable_raisin

  • B and C:

    I think that an election should be held in Syria in order to establish the views of the remaining population. After this election is held, a group of developed, stable countries should aid Syria in rebuilding necessary structures, such as schools, hospitals and shelters for those who have been displaced by conflict. This is due to the large presence of terrorist groups in Syria, as well as the successor of Bashar al-Asaad (the ex-leader of Syria), being a known leader of one of the largest terrorist organisations. Ahmed_al-Sharaa, the interim president of Syria, was the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a rebel group once linked to Al Qaeda. - (Source: New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/world/europe/syria-president-ahmed-al-shara.html )

  • My opinion is b because it is fair any one could enter and people vote so it be fair but A the public can not vote and they might be the same as the Assad family but D the other country might give a week leader for there advantage so look other all of the options b was the best.

  • I think that the current leader of Syria should be the leader because if voting happens immediately more than 5 million people are not in the country so it would be inappropriate.

  • I think option C is correct because the current president of Syria is not a good man and if he did one good thing, if they elect they are going to elect him because they're happy about one thing. Therefore I think a more stable country should decide.

  • In my opinion, I think option B would be the best decision for Syria. Considering Bahar Al Asad, head of HTS was ruling Syria for 50 years and was doing no good, killing those who stood up to him. We have not a lot of information about Ahmed al-Sharaa, the leader of a group of rebels that took down HTS and is who some Syrians think are the new leader, another reason they should elect a leader is with Bahar Syrians didn't have voices or opinions were heard .

  • In my point of view, option C is clearly undemocratic because the syrian people should have the right to decide what to do next rather than an external power taking a decision. Sometimes, foreign interference can also lead to extension of this conflict if the country is not an alliance to syria. Also, I'm disagreeing with option B, because many of the syrian are forced to flee their homes for safety reasons. So, conducting a election with a representative of the entire population is not possible and it will be unfair and can lead to further violence. So, I think the option A is right, because the whole rebellion was against dictatorship and Ahmed-al-sharaa was fighting to get rid of dictatorship, so there is no doubt regarding the rule of Ahmed-al-sharaa as he wanted syria to be an independent country, so I think he will be a good leader.
    Thank you

  • In my opinion I think A, B and C all have there pros and cons. A might be the most probable option that will happen and all though Ahmed al-Sharaa has promises about being a good fair leader, he may not keep all of them. B would seem like the best option but with over 6 million Syrians out of the country and unable to vote it would be unfair.C, I personally think the people of Syria would not want another country picking there leader as someone could ally with that country and make the decision unfair and that country might not pick a could leader. In conclusion, all of the options are possible and I believe all could end up with either negative or positive outcomes.

  • From my point of view , I think a country wit a strong democracy should decide what happens next for Syria .Yes they should have their own say but they definitely do not want a repeat of what just happened .


    But I also agree that Ahmed al-Sharaa should be president because I do not think that he would be strict and come up with harsh religions rules because he has been campaigning for freedom from these terms against the Assad family so why would he go back to these rules.

    Therefore I think I am torn in the middle of A and C

  • I would say be as it is right for the country to choose what government they want to have as a leader as it is not really fair if another country chooses what they can have even though they're more experienced and yes they're more stable and have more certain abilities to know who to pick, but they still need to have the advance in the choosing techniques and they also will develop new skills often want to write and want to vote as if other contributes for them they wouldn't have the experience. Also a is also not my opinion as a would be like really bad as Ahmed al-sharaa Is already probably not a good government to the people and many people are angry with him being the The government anyway.

  • I think option B as the country of Syria should have the choice of who leads their country. Although some think it is unfair as some Syrians are not in their country but Syria needs a good leader to make the right decisions and prevent another civil war. This also has cons such as they may have an election and a non stable prime minister so there may end up being another civil war.

    I don't think option A as all the Syrians should have the choice not just be given a prime minister. All Syrians should get to chose who leads their country.

    I don't think option C as a non stable country may pick a non stable prime minister onvthe other hand I also think option C as a stable country may pick a stable leader.

    With option A some Syrians think Ahmed al-Sharaa will be a religious leader and will have many religious rules that other Syrians may not like. That is why I think option B is the best so it will be fair and everyone will have an opinion through the election.

    Furthermore if Syria 🇸🇾 had another country decide there leader I would chose a stable country like England as England has a good prime minister.

    Thank you for reading and I hope to get a wonderful star.

  • I think B because an election is fair and I think it's not fair that people don't get to pick there their leader. Also the ASSAD family are being cruel to the people of Syria.

  • In my opinion, chance B and chance A are the most likely to happen but also chance A is not the best because maybe if Ahmed El-Sharaa wasn't good for all the syrians it's not going to be fair again. So I guess chance B is the best because they can finally have their opinion about something after years of struggling and suffering, but actually the question is:

    Is there enough people to participate in the elections already?

    Is there people remaining in Syria to vote for the elections?

    I'd like to see your opinions below.

    And the last few years (at least in Egypt) there was a lot of syrians there for example when I go shopping or hang out with my family I could find a lot of Syrian shops and Syrian food around which was fun but now you could barely find syrian shops and syrian food which is actually making me a little bit sad because I was actually happy to have different cultures in our country. But why can we barely find syrians well this is actually the answer of the question "Is there enough people in Syria to vote in the elections?" Well it's because the syrians is now back to their country (Syria) which is a happy thing for them and most of us are happy for them because they can finally feel delighted again and also we still have different cultures in our country so now in Syria they can make elections and have their very own choosing president.

    Thank you!

  • I agree with c for people with a stronger government could help in deciding who should take charge. I also agree with b because if the people vote a majority of the people will be happy and they will be able to get what they want. But they don’t want to re-live the horrors of the Assad family with another war, this way they could just roll with their new government with the rebels

  • In my opinion I think they should wait and build up everything in Syria so people have to sleep school and other things like that. It also said in the lesson that over 5 million people weren’t in the country due to lots of damage and other things. This would not be a fair vote if every Syrian was not allowed to vote just because they aren’t in the country. In conclusion I think that they should have a prime minister at the moment (Ammed al-Sharaa) then vote for a new prime minister when everybody is back.

  • I think none of the option above is fit for the current situation haunting Syria. Though, i find a little possibility in option C. If other stable countries like US, Ireland etc can help with providing financial aid to Syria, which i think would be very helpful as they can reconstruct destroyed arshitectures and the money can also be used to help victims and children who've suffered because of the war. But i anticipate that the best option for the Syrians right now would be to manage and take care of their basic needs like food, money and other things vital for survival because politics and elections are a later-on matter. I believe the most difficult task they face right now is how to regain control of their present sitch, so the most important thing would be surival. Maybe if syrians unite together, and find out ways to sort their current problems to make the country more livable, we can see a quick and positive impact on syria!

  • In my opinion I would say b because Ahmed al-Sharaa put the country at war and if the do an election the Syrians would have a fair decision on who they want to run the country

  • In my opinion, I believe that if Ahmed al-Sharaa retains possession of Syria, strict rules will be cast over the suffering country based on Islamic religion. However, the president has not yet impacted through any method so far. Among cirtain individuals, it is believed that he should be setting the rules down and be fighting for what he believes in but a common opinion is that is shoud be provented.
    I think that B is unnecessary because the majority of the population has fled and moved to different countries temporarily until the civil war has ended. This means that if a vote was held, several refugees would be unable to vote due to not being in Syria.
    Although C is priority in my mind, i feel an ambivalence about a foreign country making Syria's desicions for them. They do need other counties to aid them during war but it seems unjust to not let them make desicions for themselves. My reasoning behind this is that the desicion another country makes for Syria will only impact Syria so they should get to make the choice.
    In conclusion, i think C wold be the most sensible desicion to make for Syria currently.

    1. Can you list some examples of countries you think could make this decision, and why?

  • I think the person that should be in charge is the leader of the rebel group. Because the leader has put much effort in the independence of syria and it will be unfair if the leader is not given that position.

  • B- because I think everyone in Syria should get a say and should have a chance to experience new government so everything can be equal but if not the country will still be the same and most people . All of them could split the country into different religions which will make a larger community but mostly I would say that in case of other invasions and fights and wars it would be better to less likely interfere in any war . But A I disagree with in my opinion because the formal president will still most likely stay the same and treat the millions of Syrians will be treated unfairly

  • I think it's unfair to conduct a election as many citizens of Syria have flew away to other countries for safety reasons. I think, it also not fair letting other countries take decisions on what Syria should do, as some countries like non-allies of Syria can push them into more conflicts. So, the best choice out is making ahmed-al-sharra the president of Syria and there is no doubt in his rule as fought dictatorship.

  • It seems to me that the best solution would be elections. This is the most democratic measure and democracy is what the citizens are fighting for and what they always wanted to gain through upending the previous regime which was considered dictatorial. Through the elections everyone will have the freedom to express their opinion freely without fearing that it is against the leader's benefits and they will face harsh consequences. However, I think that this should not happen immediately as all the events are too fresh and people may be lead more by their strong emotions than their logical thinking. As well as that immediate elections would be unfair to refugees who fled the country in order to escape the war's dangers but now, they want to return to their home land to take part in the formation of the new government and haven't had the time to yet .

  • I think Option B is the most unreasonable out of the three. At first glance, it's easy to think that it could be a good choice moving forward. However, if you think about it thoroughly, it's really not. For starters, this option is nearly impossible as 3 million Syrians have already fled due to the war, which leaves less people able to voice their opinion if there is an upcoming election. Not only that but, Ahmed al-Sharaa has promised rights and freedom for everyone in Syria, but we barely know anything about him or if he's even going to keep these promises. However, what we do know is that, he's a former terrorist that used to be apart of Al-Queada, a group who terrorized thousands. Why would we trust him to be in charge of a whole country? Also, if he sees people voting out against him, he could throw them in jail for Life.

  • At first when my group did the lesson I thought that B made the most sense because the people should be the ones to decide the future of their country, but now that I am typing this and thinking about it I feel like C is actually the better option. My opinion had changed because the people that thought that option C was the best in my group had explained how a country with a strong democracy like Norway would be more stable financially, and have a better government. And with everything that is happening in Syria right now, I can't exactly say that their government is the best. So it would make more sense to have a stable country or even a group of countries with strong democracies to deal with it as long as it was for the better of Syria's people and they agree with it.

  • I will have a argument for option B: The country should hold immediate elections to elect a new leader.
    I have many reasons about it,,, as like;

    •Emphasize public opinion: The responsibility determine the future of the country must rest with the Syrian people, not outside forces..

    • Stability and international recognition : A democratically elected government would gain legitimacy and support from the international community,, which would facilitate economic reconstruction and diplomatic relations.

    Avoid external interference: If another country interfeared in the election of the syrian leader under option C, it would undermine Syria's sovereignty.

    Risk of unilateral Rule By a rebel leader : if Rebel leader Ahmed Ali shada where to become president under option A it could an authoritariam regime, and risk suppressing the opposition.

    Therefore, a free, fair and internationally monitored election would be the most effective and just course of action for Syria.

    ....thank you....

  • The Syrian regime has controlled Syria for over 50 years and there was no democracy, no freedom of speech and there was no individual liberty and there was nom human rights for anyone. However after the collapse of the Assad dynasty and the Syrian regime. The rebel leader of HTS (Hayat tahrir a sham) Ahmed-Al-Sharaa and his militants managed to overthrow Bashar-Al-Assad , so option C is not a good option because many countries have interfered in the civil war and not put up to the expectations of the Syrian people, in fact they brought more chaos along with them so the people of Syria might be thinking to themselves will there be a new era of a dictator? As well the Americans backed the Kurds which is also backed up by most western countries as well as NATO which could bring a spark to the Syrian people and they would think that if they would have a Kurdish Leader. Whereas with option B , it is a quite controversial one because it is very early for candidates to come in since the country was only freed about nearly 2 months ago so if they want to host an election which I mostly agree with it will have to take time so the country can be stable and when Ahmed-Al-Sharaa will negotiate with the Kurds 0n what to do. Option A is the most safe option since Ahmed-AL-Sharaa freed Syria and was the leader of the rebel group so ideally he should control Syria and he has as 0f 29th of January 2025. Overall war is not the way to solve problems in the future people have to negotiate and not go to war. Thank you.

  • I think it should be b because he did not get elected by the Syrians he only made the revolutions and he could make more problems for Syria than Assad so i know that many are out of Syria so until things get more stable in Syria i do not think that they should return home because they could have to move out straight again after that. If a election could be formed then the rebel leader could run with many other people and the people could choose the leader for their uncertain future.

  • I believe B is the best solution to the problem, as Syrians should be able to discover more about the rebel leader before he becomes their President, and they should be able to vote for other people ,so they have a say to about the person who makes the choices that affect them.

  • I strongly believe that they should hold an election however must wait to see if citizens that fled want to come back. i also think that B is the best option because the people that didn't flee, fought for there city and there lives so it would be more fair if they have an election since they have just fought and they will not want to fight again.

  • I think B because he didn't get elected by the Syrians , he only made revolutions and he could make more problems
    for Syria than Assad . So i know that many are out of Syria so until things get more better in Syria they can go back.
    I think everyone should have the right to vote because woman or men can vote.

  • I think B would be the only fair option since the people living in Syria could choose a path for their country after 12 years of the Assad family's regime. Although many Syrians are living in other countries they could have settaled in their new country so they would rather stay there. However those who would rather come back to Syria to vote for who they would like. I think C would be the most risky option since this could lead to another war if they don't agree with said stable country. A could lead to another regime since he wasn't elected and Syrians seem to have a fifty-fifty split oppinion on him.

  • I think Syria should have a new leader as they deserve someone they could trust to help rebuild the country. Now that the Assad family is gone Syria can focus on trying to rebuild and elect a new leader so Syria has an option to elect someone new.

  • i think B is the best thing they can do because if they hold a election so they can choose who they want as president . for 50+ years the Assad family has been killing other peoples members of family and a war has been gowing on so i think its B

  • I think that B is the best option because, the Syrians have been suffering under the control president Assad and have lost family because of him, the Syrians must feel anxious to choose a new leader.

  • In my opinion, I think that option B is the right solution because the Syrian people have just fought a war to get a fair, kind and just leader so I think they have the right to express their opinion on who they think should be their leader. Also, Ahmed al-Sharaa says he will respect women's rights as well as all religions, but how do we know he is telling the truth? How do we know that he isn't just saying this to get public popularity? As well as this, there could be another person who wanted to be president that would be an amazing, fair leader who may never get the chance to be president. So I think that, to make things fair and equal, there should be a election.

  • In my opinion, that option B is the right thing to do because the Syrian people have the right to vote an elect who they think should run their country.Also,nobody actually knows what this man will do, he might just be saying all these things so people believe in him.So in my opinion,to make things fair,an election should be held.

  • I think B because every person of a certain age should have the right to vote who governs their country. While the country is not stable, patrons of Syria still deserve their vote much as anyone else. Ahmed-al-Sharaa is a suitable choice but he may make decisions not everyone agrees on. Also, other countries may not know Syria like the citizens do. I think the people of Syria should choose a leader who they think could lead them to great things.

  • I think B because the people of Syria deserver a chance to vote for a leader as they still pay taxes and obey the laws so surely they should be allowed to to pick their own leader. We know Ahmed al- Sharaa led the rebels to win over Syria that was great but people should still deserve a vote. The people of Syria know him to be great in helping people of Syria yet it does not mean he deserves the chance to just take control without a vote. A reason for why C shouldn't be is that the people of Syria should be independent and if another country were to take charge then what is stopping that country from taking over Syria? The people of Syria deserve the chance to choose a leader and if Ahmed al- Sharaa gets picked then it proves he should be the leader. This is why i think Syria should hold a vote.

  • From my point of view, option B is the best choice. My reason for this is because Syria's people should be the ones to pick who is in charge of them and make their taxes. Secondly they do not know if al-Sharaa is good or bad he could be on the side of the Assad family and start the civil war back up again. But it deferentially should not be C because lets say Russia gets to choose who is in charge they will just pick the worst person to do it. So that is why I think B.

    1. When you say "they will just pick the worst person" - what do you mean? And do you have any evidence for this opinion?

      1. I think Russia will pick someone who is similar to Putin. (Someone who is untrustworthy) That will not be good for the people of Syria. Putin has a bad track record concerning peoples human rights.

  • I think that B is correct. My reason is that the Syrians know for themselves exactly what happened, because they were part of the war, plus we don't know if the country with a strong democracy knows as much as other countries or if they have their own decisions about it and what happened. For these reasons, I think that B is the best decision.

  • I don't think B because if the country did a vote there could be someone who is like the Assad family and they could do the same thing that the Assad family did. In my onion i would say C because if a country with a strong democracy decides what happens it would be better than just someone random picking what happens next for Syria.

    1. What democratic country would you think is best to decide what happens in Syria next? And why?

  • I think B because of 2 main reasons. The first reason is why it can't be A, which is that we don't really know if Ahmed al-Sharaa is good or not. All we know is that he made the Assad family leader flee the country. Now I am going to say why I did not pick C either. I think they should not get another country to decide what happens to Syria because that country might not know anything about who is good or bad and pick someone bad. There is also aa chance that they choose Russia and they say they have someone and it is the old leader of the Assad family.

  • In my opinion, I believe that the best option for the future of Syria and Syrian people is point A and point B. I think this because, Syria has just recently had a war which has caused high levels of destruction and damage to infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, businesses and millions of homes, which has led to the displacement of many Syrian people. So, I believe that the country should remain with Ahmed al-Sharaa as the president of Syria whilst the country begins to strengthen and gradually become stable, because if the country is stable, then Syrian refugees who have been displaced to a different country can return to their home country if they would like to. And then when the country is reasonably stable, then I think Syria should have an election to decide if they would still like Ahmed al-Sharaa to be their leader or if they would like a new leader. I think this would be really good for Syria, as it accomplishes stability for the country and Syrians can have a say on who they think will be the best leader for them.

  • from my point of view, options B and C deems unfair if i am to say because after liberating syria from the clutches of the Assad family, who had ruled syria for 50 years no one else had the guts and mind to do what Mr sharaa and his rebel group did and although he may have strong religious principle that people are afraid that he might implement. maybe just maybe, those strong principles might just be what the syrians need to become great again.

  • The question of who should be in charge of Syria is very complicated and subjective. Right now, the president of Syria is Bashar al-Assad, but many people think he has not been a good leader because of the war and violence in the country. Some people believe that a new leader, chosen by the people, would be better for Syria’s future, but there are many different opinions. Many countries want Syria to have peace and a fair government, but it's hard to decide who should be in charge because of the different groups and ideas in the country. Personally, I believe that citizens of syria have been struggling much lately and they are not ready mentally to have ellections as they they have been through very difficult conditions, that is why I find option B impossible!

  • in my opinion, i don't think option C is a good option. if coutries with a strongerdemocracy are to decide for syria, they might see it as a priviledge to exploit the country and make bad decisions for them and at the end making situations worst for syria. i don't also agree with option B because most of the citizens of syria flee from the country because of the civil war and are either settled in safe countries or are still internally displaced. so as a result i don't think an election is going to be possible. finally i believe that option A is the solution. Ahmed al-Sharaa promised to respect all religions and the rights of women. and he tried his own very best to fight for the freedom of the people of syria which must have posed a big threat to his live and i believe he should be rewarded for this very patriotic act by giving him the position of the president. thanks

    1. He may have promised that he will ensure women's and minorities' rights but how can we ensure he doesn't act as he did in his Al-Qaeda related past?

    2. you've given a good explanation of your views for the three options, how do you think a third country might try to exploit Syria? If Ahmed al-Sharaa is allowed to remain president should this be on condition that he holds elections at some point in the future?

  • B is not really a possible option as many Syrians are outside the country and will not take part in the vote and there may be little to no candidates except from Ahmed al-Sharaa. C will be a bad option as citizens may not like other country’s deciding for them as it is their country and it does not belong to the other country. I Feel A is not a good option ever because it could be a bad idea to let someone who nobody knows much about so it could cause major damage to the country in the future. So in my opinion I think they should hold an election later once they have more candidates.

    1. I agree with your point that an election is probably not yet possible given the number of Syrians outside the country and the poor state of infrastructure inside the country. Who do you think should run the country until they are able to hold elections?

  • I think that A is the best choice because of all the schools hospitals and homes have been lost so Ahmed al-sharaa should stay leader till homes and schools are rebuilt so people can come back to their home rebuilt and be happy and when everything is ready they can host a election

  • I think that the way she wants to choose their leader is through election because election is a fairway to choose a leader and they is a possibility of them choosing a good leader that will lead them through the crisis of Syria. This is also a possible way for Syria to get a better. A president who could rebuild the whole nation back to one piece initially should be choose I believe Syria could be able to regain its strength and go back to its feet to be the world most common and one of the best countries in the whole world.

  • We need a combination of some sort. A is completely out of the cards considering it is highly undemocratic, and a move not fit for a nation which has almost never experienced democracy, even more because Ahmed Al-Sharaa is an ex-member of the islamist extremist group Al-Qaeda. This leaves us with B and C, C is an illegal intervention on a country's sovereignty and should be heavily discouraged, we have experienced this in my country of Greece where there used to be a military Junta imposed on us by the USA. Unfortunately though, B seems like it may be fruitless, in a nation of instability it is very hard to hold Free and Fair elections especially with all the armed military groups being able to cause chaos and interfere with the election process. The sole solution seems to be B but with neutral UNARMED(no need for another Iraq) outside observers to ensure the democratic process remains free and fair.

  • I strongly disagree with option B because... Firstly an election is absolutely impossible as a good number of Syrians fled to other countries due to the civil war that was going on in their own country. Secondly, even though they were to come back to Syria for the election, they would not even think think twice to reject the offer as most of them had found refuge in their new countries and are happy and settled or still traumatize due to the bad situations they had passed through to even prepare themselves to vote . I also disagree with C because...If a country with a stronger democracy is to decide what happens next in Syria, they might make decisions that are dissatisfactory and unpleasant to the people which would in the future cause more conflicts and chaos in the country. I firmly support option A because...rather than Syrians looking for a leader to rule their country instead they should allow the rebel group leader Ahmed al-Sharaa to remain their president as he had portrayed the attribute of a good leader by defending the country during the civil war. And moreover, he had promised to respect the religions of the people and women's life and had kept to his promises. Also he vowed to pursue the criminals who had shed the blood of Syrians and reconstruct the country. Lastly, he promised to unify the country and create an inclusive government and constitution.

    1. That is good reasoning, open_wildcat. But what if Mr Sharaa does not keep his promises of unity and an inlcusive government?

  • From my perspective, option B holding elections right away seems more harmful than helpful. With millions of Syrians displaced, both inside the country and abroad, it would be incredibly difficult to create a fair and accurate voter list. Elections without full participation wouldn't be legitimate. Plus, Syria's religious and ethnic divisions are deep, and elections could just highlight those rifts. We've seen this before in places like Iraq, where elections deepened sectarian tensions rather than bringing people together.

    Option A keeping Ahmed al-Sharaa in power also comes with its own set of problems. While he’s promised to respect religious freedoms and women's rights, his past ties to Al-Qaeda and DAESH are concerning. Even though HTS distanced itself from Al-Qaeda, it could be a move to gain international recognition and aid, not necessarily a genuine shift. His leadership is unproven, and there’s a real risk of him consolidating power in the way we've seen with other leaders, despite initial promises of moderation.

    Option C, foreign intervention sounds like it could help, but it’s tricky. While external support might assist Syria in transitioning to democracy and countering Iran’s influence, it could also worsen the situation. Syria is already a battleground for regional powers, with Israel and Turkey at odds over the Kurds, and the U.S. and Russia pulling in different directions. Foreign involvement could end up complicating matters further, rather than offering a real solution.
    In the end, none of these options offer a simple fix.

    1. This is a really well-researched comment and shows great knowledge about the topic. I am being a healthy sceptic here, and wonder whether it is all entirely your own work? I can see that you pasted it in - did you use any other websites to help? If so, can you share which ones so other Topical Talkers can read the original source?

      1. Hello Olivia, thank you for replying! I have done some research because I believe that to have a well reasoned opinion, it's important to really understand what you're talking about. I found a lot of interesting and well-explained news and videos, these are my favorites:
        https://youtu.be/sQ9P1VbkD5I
        https://youtu.be/q4ZVV-6FrAs
        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8j99447gj1o
        https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10161/
        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d9r0vg6v7o
        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9311vwy0yo

        1. Interesting, thank you very much for sharing! Hopefully you have encouraged others to carry out research on the topic.

  • In my opinion, option B would not be likely to happen because not all of the Syrians are in the country and also some people are very hurt from the Civil war. So from my point of view ,I think that another more stable country should decide who should have the role of leading Syria but for the moment, lets see how Ahamed Al-Shara leads

  • i think that an election should be held and let the public decide because the public don't know what he has in store for Syria even though he promised peace some citizens are scared that hes gonna indoctrinate them and choose one religion for them to follow also because he started a civil war you don't know if he will start wars with other countries and betray his country

  • In my point of view,It's B although many people(refugees)from Syria have fled to countries like Turkey because of the Civil -War the people still in Syria should make parties and should vote for who the feel is right after there speeches. Although people are from different sides, religion and ethics in Syria should maybe not put such pressure on religions and strict rules in parties so that people can be free and they can stop the civil war, stop the conflict.I also think it C because they need a strong ruler as they had more experience with presidential stuff and finacial problem like inflation. Also they should give the Syrians who's hurt some aid and care

  • my opinion about Syria is that there state is in a bad position with the Asshad family since the rebel groups put there fight for their loved ones and trying to withstand the Assad families decisions i am slightly concered about the rebel group that took over because we dont know what they might be planning to do because its a rebel group so i dont know what we should expect about this nex change in Syria but i thik its a oppurtiunity for Syria to start over again and get a new life since for the last 12 yers they have been in a civil war since even teenagers are going to prison for disaggreing with the Asshad family this leads to more people dying and i think now about millions or thousands of people have died because of this tragic civil war so this might be a turning point for Syria well we will see on the news if the rebels do any good in Syria

  • In my opinion, I feel that Syria should do an election immediately. Furthermore, Ahmed -al Sharaa is a Muslim and might not be open to accept other religions. Due to this, the majority of people who are not a Muslim will want an election so that they can select a supportive leader.

    1. Interesting point. Why do you think someone who is Muslim might not accept other religions? Do you have evidence for this? And for the people who aren't Muslim - does their political leader need to be the same religion as them to be supportive?

  • In my opinion, I believe that, option B is the most democratic and fair solution. After years of conflict, the Syrian people should have the right to choose their own leader rather than having one imposed on them. An election would provide legitimacy to the government and help rebuild trust among citizens.

    A strong example of this is Tunisia, which successfully transitioned to democracy after its revolution in 2011. Despite challenges, Tunisia held free elections, paving the way for stability and democratic governance. Syria could follow this path to unite and rebuild the country.

    However, for elections to succeed, Syria must ensure security, prevent external interference and create a fair voting system. International organizations, such as the United nations, could assist in ensuring transparency.

    In conclusion I think, a free and fair election is the best way to give Syrians control over their future. While the road to stability will not be easy, history has shown that when people are given a voice, progress becomes possible.

  • I think elections should be immediately held in Syria to choose a new leader ( option B) is right thing to do because as option A says that Ahmed al-Sharaa should be the president of Syria I don't think so because Syria is getting its freedom and independence after so many years which means they are at their final round so they should not trust anyone so easily . Option C says that another country with a strong democracy should decide the president for Syria but I don't think so because I think that each country should be independent to take decisions for their own country also the people living in the country know their country better than any other country. Hence I feel option B is right.

  • In my opinion option B is correct that Syria country should immediately hold an election to decide on a new leader, before they didn’t get chance to elect their president and then this all happened that why elections should happen immediately they should get their rights they should feel free in their own country and in option A even though Ahmed al-sharaa can be a president as he was the backbone of rebel group during civil war in Syria but holding an clearcut election would be fair for all the people of Syria and in option c I.e. other stable country should decide for Syria who their next president should be is unfair because their fight is for democracy and after all the fight if other chooses their leader that would be ironic, that why option B is the most suitable thing to do in the current scenario.

    1. I agree because the Syrian people should have their own right to elect their president

  • According to me I will choose option B . Because I think in option A if Ahmed al Sharaa changes his mind and start behaving like Bashar al Assad. In option C there is given as other country will decide the new president and if he also go on that wrong path . So I think they should have their own right to elect their president because they are handling this for many years .

  • I choose option B, because the Assad family have been ruling the country with an iron fist for years. Then the rebel group which was lead by Ahmed al-Sharaa took over parts of the country. Their last leader flew to an asylum in Russia . The people should immediately hold an election ton decide their new leader, a leader that will bring peace and unity , a leader that will care ,love and protect his/her people and a leader that will help in economic growth. It will be better for the people if they hold an election, so the land will not be colonised. So they won't have to suffer any more.

  • Personally, I think that Option A would be the best choice for Syria as it transitions away from authoritarianism to more liberal political system for time being.
    While I do not think that Ahmed al-Sharaa should be allowed to take power just because he was the military leader who managed to topple Bashar's government as this will only continue the cycle of military dictators rising and falling by setting a harmful precedent thar only the strong deserve power. However, Option B's suggestion of snap elections will only reignite political tensions and inter-factional rivalries, destabilising the country even more while its already in a fragile political position.
    I think that Syria needs time to stabilie before elections can be held, and while I dont think that Ahmed al-Sharaa should *stay* president, I do think his presence may keep the peace until elections cam be held. I believe that he should stay in power for the next few months so that the country can recover from its decade-long civilwar and *then* elections should be held so that the country can be given time to peacefully transition into a more equal and representative form of government.

  • Based off of my thoughts I personally think that B would be the correct.The reason I say this is because as you can see A says and I quote,"Ahmed al-Sharra,the rebel leader who took over the country,should remain the president of Syria" which I don't agree with because based off of Josie's video she said that some Syrians were worried about their new government (Ahmed al-Sharra).While on the other hand C says that a government with a strong democracy should decide what happens for Syria.Another example from Josie's video is that she also said some people are happy with their government,but from others opinion in Syria they might disagree and want a new leader.A reason I think that B is correct is that Syrians should be able to have the right to vote for themself.I also think that it is right for Syria to hold an election immediately.In conclusion,some people might disagree but in my opinion B is the right choice for Syria.

  • From my point of view, B is the best option. After what happened with the old leader, it is the best option. Many casualties have died in prisons, Mazen Al-Hamada, a Syrian activist also died for no reason other than speaking up about the dictatorship taking place in their home country. It is proven that Bashar Al- Assad kept hostage of thousands of people underground in Sednaya prison. However, now that Bashar secretly fled to Moscow, capital of Russia , lots of riots have taken place, wondering about what is next for their country.

  • In my opinion, I think that A is the best answer. I know many may not agree with me, but I only think that Ahmed al Sharaa should be the new leader of Syria but not for too long. I think that al Sharaa should be the leader of Syria just for a while at least until most of Syria is rebuilt and some Syrian refugees come back. Although this may take a while, it is best to save the money to rebuild some of the country's buildings and let the Syrian refugees return if they want to take part in the election.

    I do not think that another country should decide what happens to Syria mainly because there might be multiple countries that would like to take charge of Syria and this may lead to arguments or even another war.

    I also do not think that b is the best option because if they do an election immediately, that money that the government would use for the election (as I mentioned in the last paragraph). could be used for better purposes like rebuilding the country.

  • In my opinion it’s the answer B.
    Indeed if Ahmed Al-Sharaa is the legitimate future president of Syria in the opinion of the Syrians, so, he will became the future president but he can’t become the president of Syria if the international and national opinion is disagree with it.
    Moreover, even if he’s the leader of the rebels we are not sure that he’s a democratic person.

  • In my opinion the B option is appropriate for the country Syria, Because country Syria know there country very well so they are capable to elect there ruler .they can held election to improve there circumstances. Option A I think it is not appropriate for syria, because Syria people don't know weather the Ahmed Al,-shaara is good person and weather he will rule there country properly . And suppose he became prime minister then he may not rule the country Syria properly. If they choose 2nd option to held election right now they can also remove the elected people from there position , there would be fear in mind of elected people that they can get be removed from the position by people . If the people of Syria has elected the people they will rule so they also have authority to remove them
    If they choose option c then they can be said as dependent country and if that ruler didi not rule properly then all blame will go no another country, who have chosen the ruler hence I think opinion B is appropriate for country Syria.

  • Good Morning, I believe that C is the best possible answer because if for example the United Nations were to temporarily be in control of Syria and then start over by building new building, bring back refugees, provide shelters, and create stability in overall. Then Syria can and most likely will be able to elect the president, prime minister, etc.

  • I believe B is the best option as humans have the right to decide who will lead them. It is unfair for a single person to rule because they have been born into a family. Many people should have the power to decide not one singular person. I respect the ruler but also believe that a good ruler will give his people choice. Many wars are caused when one person gets to decided how to rule the country. Take Hitler as an example, he tortured those who disobeyed him and made sure they would suffer, that is unfair and we can not risk that happening again. Thank you

  • I think option C is the best choice for this. For option A, it would be unreasonable to so quickly trust someone. Using another time in history, such as the Holocaust, many people believed in Adolf Hitler so quickly because he said he was going to "save" them. He had only committed crimes instead with the people behind him because they believed he would truly save them. This can also happen with Ahmed al-Sharaa. People in Syria barely know his background and allowing him to do whatever just from him promising to help will be dangerous for the future of Syria. In option B, if many people of Syria already left, why hold an election? It wouldn't be fair because then not everyone's thoughts are heard. In option C, stable countries will be able to give stability to Syria. The only major risk is having a communist country to help, which we could avoid if a country who values its people AND is stable decides to step in. This way, we can take an approach of giving stability in a safer way that does not include Ahmed al-Sharaa or unfair voting.

  • I think that the most preferable option is B and I think that, cause the Syrian people have faced the trauma of the county's condition and the people will best know the person who can lead them the most fairly and with providing justice .
    I don't know if making Ahmed al-sharaa the next leading person of Syria will be that much of a pleasant choice since he might treat everyone the same as Assad's family . Letting another county decide the future leader of Syria will be fair or with their will , keeping that in mind I prefer to belive in the option B .Holding an election right now might be a game changer for Syria.

  • hi im warm squirrel and i think b becuse the new leader is not that good and there should be a new one as this one is not that fair so they should let them do a new election to vote who is the new leader and whoever everyone aggres on its more fair

  • I think that the syrians shouldn`t have a ruler but would have strict rules that they must obey. I think that some syrians might not want a ruler because of the old one. the leader of the refuge camp might become ruler and turn out to be like the old one and make his people sad.

  • I think all of the options could work, but I still choose Option B. The first option, with Ahmed al-Sharaa staying in charge, might be good because he’s already in power and knows the country well, so it could bring stability. It’s like when you're in the middle of a race and it's easier to keep running than to stop and start over. However, Option B is still the best in my opinion because holding an election would give everyone a voice in choosing who leads. This way, the people can choose someone who truly represents them, like picking the captain for your team. Josie talks about how Syria’s government has changed, so an election might be the fresh start the country needs. Option C, where another country with a strong democracy decides, might also be helpful because it could bring in new ideas and help Syria rebuild. It’s like how a coach from another team can teach new tricks, but it’s hard for someone from the outside to fully understand what Syria needs. So, all the options have their merits, but Option B feels like the best way to give the people a chance to shape their own future.

  • B is the best choice, in my opinion. Though all options aren't ideal, B is the best since a) it helps prevent a (unlikely, but definitely possible) dictatorship forming again, and b) it helps establish a democracy and order -- which hasn't been in place for around 12 years. A isn't ideal since al-Sharaa may not be the best suited for the country: there may be a more successful candidate. Despite being the de facto leader, he isn't president by law, so legally, Syria does not, at the moment, have a president. Without a president, new laws cannot be passed, introduced or rejected, so the country will stay in its current state. An election needs to held immediately to help Syria regain its economy and order -- Syria was a major exporter of petroleum and agricultural goods to neighbouring countries like Lebanon and Iraq before the civil war.
    Syria is also home to many poignant sites, such as Damascus and Aleppo, which are very historically significant cities, being inhabited from atleast 2000BCE. This opens many opportunities for tourism and ecotourism -- however, since the civil war, most of Syria's economy has been destroyed. Hence why they need a reliable leader, that can recover Syria. There may be more economical, or more ecofriendly, or more peace-oriented candidates that would do much better than al-Sharaa. C is out since Syria needs to build itself up. It's like during the Russo-Ukrainian war, when countries tried to help, but ended up making it worse.
    Therefore, B is the best option for Syria.

  • I think A is the most reasonable option but there may be some doubts too. I didn’t pick option B as holding an election immediately is the wrong thing to do. Firstly, it will cause more stress to people who have already lost their homes and loved ones so this action will make them go crazy with all that’s happening and I do feel bad for them. Secondly, there are so many people lost and in other countries so the election wouldn’t be fair on everyone. I chose A as I think Ahmed al-Sharaa would be a great leader for the moment. On the news, it said that he will make peace, rebuild hospitals, homes and schools but he said it would take time. Although, it said he might make very religious rules. On one hand this is good as it will provide a sense of community but on the other hand it might create some challenges too. Lastly, I didn’t pick C as letting another country with a strong democracy decide what happens next isn’t right. Adding on to what other people said is that people still in Syria might not like their decisions which might create some more disruption and chaos. So in conclusion I think the best option is A as it will cause the least problems for everyone.

  • I think that the idea that the most fair idea is the B, because the people should have the oportunity to elect their governant and not been force to follow someone that they don´t like.
    Although I think that the C is also a good idea because all people is commocioned with the recent events and I don´t think they are with the capacity of decide who they want to be the governant.
    Finally, I think that the A is the worst idea because they have already see that this people are not capable of maintain a country and they musn´t govern the country.

  • Option B seems like the best choice because a fair election would give the people of Syria the chance to decide their own future. If Ahmed al-Sharaa stays in power without election, it could lead to more conflict and instability. On the other hand, letting another country decide would take away Syria´s right to self-determination. A democratic election would be the fairest way to ensure the new leader truly reprents the people´s wishes and helps bring stability to the country.

  • I believe that choice b is the most suitable for Syria's situation right now because countries won't remain intact if there is no president ruling over them and make decision on what to invest and not invest in.

    The one that I think is unfair is option c as no other country should be able to control and decide what is best for another country that would be like taking over a it and that's unfair and unreasonable.

    Option A is optimal but I don't think it right to make him the leader and president of Syria that's because he could be overwhelmed by the power he has and turn on Syria so voting a president that syrians are sure won't turn on them is better.

  • In my opinion, I think the better option is B, I desagree with C, and I´m in the middle with A, because I agree in some ways, but I desagree in others. With B I totally agree because, if everything in Syria is going bad, is better to change the person that is in charge, because maybe another one will make it better. I don´t really agree with A, because if things are going bad in Syria, wy we should remain the same person that is charge?, but I agree in some ways, because maybe with some help, the person in charge of Syria can make the thing/decisions better. And I totally desagree with C, because anyone should be involve in things which are not from they.

  • Option B sounds like the best choice for the country. The people should decide what they want to do with their own country, not other people. I also say they should hold an election to see how people actually feel. Maybe people have changed there after the war and have some new thoughts. Everyone in their country should have a voice because that's what matters the most. The people make the government and the country. Without people, there would be no Syria or Syrians.

  • I say B that the country should immediately hold an election to decide on a new leader. The reason I believe this way is because the people should decide on a new leader especially after being in control for so long. Citizens deciding on a new leader is the best way because it allows everyone to voice their opinion on who they want to be their new leader. The reason I don't choose A because suppose their new leader has no political experience then syria will be in a much bigger hole. The reason I don't choose C is because it may become similar to the Israel-Palenstine situation where when they tried to help them they only made the situation worse.

  • I feel that option "A' is clearly the right choice. Let's get this straight and clear, if the people wanted the Assad regime to get the heck out, and this guy kicked them out like Herman Talmadge ran Ellis Arnall out of office and changed the locks. He deserved to come out on top of all the rebel groups due to the fact that he did what the people wanted, therefore the people wanted him. With this in mind, if they were to hold an election, this "Ahmed al-Sharaa" would very likely win anyways since he did the "duty" of the people to rid the Assads. Obviously, it shouldn't be C since whoever chose that in the comments doesn't have a strong enough argument simply because of history.