No. It is indeed the case that the outcome was a foregone conclusion and that to European standards this election was neither fair nor free. But Syria is not Europe and it is at war with an insurgency of many colours, some of which are the archest enemies of Western civilization known. The West, whose collective foreign policy over Syria has been every bit as big a disaster as Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, points out that people only voted in areas held by the Assad government and not in large parts of the country held by the rebels. This, it cries, renders the election invalid.
Really? When Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the USA in 1861 by a landslide in the Northern states, he was so unpopular in the South that several states did not even print his name on the ballot papers. When four years later he stood and won a second term, no voting took place at all in the half of the country which had become the Confederate States of America. Nobody suggested then nor since that he was not the legitimate President of that part of the country which remained loyal to his cause.
The West utterly misjudged the Arab Spring, seeing only some Utopian eruption of pluralist democracy, oblivious to the very real dangers posed by tribal, religious, ethnic and ideological fissures and the chaos and suffering which would follow if these broke national fabrics apart. Russia warned but nobody listened.
Whether Syria will ever be put back together with the boundaries set post WWI is unlikely. What is clear is that whatever the imperfections, a very large number of Syrians, especially Christians and other minorities, see the Assad Presidency as their best hope and are willing enthusiastically to support it. No solution can be brokered by the international community at whatever level unless that fact is recognized and accepted, however much humble pie has to be eaten to do so.