📰 The Right to Self-Determination: What Do Syrians Fear?

Lenin advanced one of the most urgent moral propositions in modern political thought when he argued, in his writings on the right to self-determination, that the majority must defend the unconditional right of the minority to determine its own destiny, even to the point of secession. At the same time, the minority was expected, of its own free will, to seek to remain within the broader political community. Notably, lenin maintained that those who belong to the majority bear a distinct ethical and political responsibility. They must actively defend the right of the oppressed group to withdraw. In other words, it is not enough for genuine democrats in a powerful nation merely to tolerate dissent. They must accept the possibility of separation and affirm the minority’s sovereign right to shape its own future.

Unity loses all legitimacy once the weaker party is rejected the option of exit. Additionally, yet Lenin was equally insistent that the oppressed nation carries a different, though complementary, responsibility. Its struggle for liberation, he argued, should prioritise forging the closest possible ties with progressive troops within the dominant nation. Notably, rather than retreating into isolation or indulging in romantic nationalism, it should pursue solidarity through shared institutions and collective political struggle – not out of coercion, but from the conviction that mutual emancipation is stronger than separation. Lenin returned to this idea repeatedly, emphasising that the call for secession was never a celebration of fragmentation. Furthermore, the aim was to ensure that any union among nations rested on consent rather than compulsion. significant and diverse states could endure and even thrive, but only when founded on genuine equality, voluntary partnership, and sincere internationalist principles.

In a striking paradox, the defence of the right to leave was itself the condition for choosing to remain. Decades ago, I parted ways with Leninist doctrines in a decisive and irreversible break. Yet I admit that I retain a measure of respect for a few of them. Additionally, his reflections on self-determination have long preoccupied me, and I believe they still carry relevance today. His thinking on the national question syrian-markets-price-chaos-continues-amid-weak-oversight/" class="smart-internal-link" title="📰 Syrian Markets: Price Chaos Continues Amid Weak Oversight">continues to resonate in political debates far beyond the world in which he lived. Stripped of its Marxist framework, the concept may appear deceptively simple.

Unity has meaning only when the door of departure exists and remains open. Indeed, a nation whose cohesion is enforced by tyranny is not a nation at all, but a vast prison. Additionally, …