That the CIA should rig elections in post Arab-Spring countries to ensure the moderates win

At the start of this debate I said two important things that went without response from my opponent. The first was that the continuing struggle for democracy requires the people involved to believe that they are getting something at the end of that struggle, not just another rigged election from the US. If you actually care about the fight for freedom and self-determination around the world then don’t undermine it with the perception that the US is both capable and willing to make that struggle meaningless. But the second thing was that the people in these countries value democracy above the price of their lives. For them to accept a government it cannot be put in place through a CIA vetted process. Why would you trust an election that has already been revealed to be controlled by the CIA, as my opponent seems happy for it to be? Why respect that government, why believe that government is acting for your interests? Even if it’s not the reality, it will be perceived as having happened. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. But let’s look at the arguments my opponent has given. He gave this argument about turning the extremists into compromisers. 1, The logic of this point went like this: Extremists are bad because they never compromise on anything. If we do this, they will say they are willing to compromise; extremists will do that because extremists are susceptible to rational argument like this and so will compromise on their extremist views. Once they say they will be willing to compromise, we can trust them! Why? Because they are extremists, who never go back on anything they say, or lie or deceive in any way. Either they can’t compromise or they can. Tell me which you believe it is, and why. 2, This argument relies on us trusting the very people you say can’t be trusted. The way the logic for these guys work is that they can break their religious laws themselves if it is in furtherance of their jihad/religious duty/whatever, that’s how terrorist cells disguise themselves. 3, What is most disturbing here is my opponent saying that if someone verbally promises they are not an extremist he believes that evidence is sufficient for the CIA to trust that individual. That is frightening. When I gave an argument that this would make parties change their actions to be favourable to the US, it was under the assumption that the CIA doesn’t just take your word for it when you say you will behave, and might require some evidence. Not to mention the obvious point that whether or not the US just trusts people, these parties will believe that they have to suck up to the US, it’s a perceptions thing. 4, If it was really the case that extremists are incapable of lying, then just get them to take an oath of office, don’t rig elections in a convoluted scheme to manipulate them into statements about willingness to compromise. Then there was this argument that if we allow extremists to win there will never be free elections. 1, Under my model they will at least get one free election; you can’t even give them that. 2, There are accountability mechanisms in place to preserve democracy. An enforceable constitution, an independent judiciary, impeachment. If someone tried to get rid of elections then they would be booted out and put in jail. Ditto if they tried to rig the elections as you say extremists would. 3, The people in these countries have shown that they in fact do want elections. There was, in fact, no anthem for the Arab spring movements, official or otherwise (they were not unified enough for that), but by far what they were most shouting was a decrying of their respective tyrants, and demands for freedom. The idea that this was all motivated by a desire for theocracy isn’t analysis, that’s just a lie, and places on the Arab Spring a homogenized narrative that it will not bare. 4, If they do become tyrannical, then there will be another revolution. The people have shown they are not willing to stand for that, and that is the ultimate level of accountability. Then this idea that the rigging won’t be obvious. 1, That relies on the assumption that there won’t be a clear favourite, which you can’t guarantee2, The top candidates go into a run-off election anyway, so the analysis on there just being so many candidates no one will care doesn’t hold.3, Let’s look at this mechanism. For this to work the CIA needs to break into the election counting offices, hack into the computers, steal the data, analyse it, manipulate it in a way that isn’t obvious, replace every back up copy, bribe or blackmail everyone who knew the results before they were announced, and get out undetected. The CIA needs to do this between when the votes are counted and when they are announced. Since results are announced by county/region/state/whatever as they come in, it is in fact impossible for an election to be rigged in that manner. It is certainly impossible to do it in a way that isn’t obvious from the statistics. 4, Of course this will translate into anti US hatred! You have stolen an election that people have died for, and are still dying for! If you don’t think that this will cause a stir, then you are sort of conceding that the extremists are not going to win anyway. Or are the extremists all reasonable people at this point in the logic again? I find it hard to keep track. Last argument, the CIA will now be a force for good!1, If it were true that CIA election rigging meant that it was no longer a violent agency, then why wasn’t that true when they were rigging elections all over South America?2, It is unlikely that people will trust the word of the agency that just admitted to rigging an election. 3, It is unreasonable to believe that the CIA is going to give up every other tool it uses in order to focus on election rigging, because those other things it does are actually somewhat important. Lastly, ask yourself this question, how would the US react if the republicans won the next election, but then British Intelligence decided that they would change those results, because they thought that the republicans were extremists? Do you think it likely that the republican supporters are going to shrug their shoulders and say “gosh, I’m glad that foreign, historically imperialist power took my right to vote away, now democracy is protected! ” or do you think it more likely that there would be some sort of violence? Do you think they will believe their vote mattered when they are told, “you could have voted for anyone other than the republican, therefore you had a free vote"? or do you think, maybe, that free voting means you can vote for whomever you damn well please? Do you think Americans are more likely to trust British Intelligence services now because, hey, it was a non-violent method of effectively taking over and dictating policy to their country? Here is another example; the Democrats win the next election fairly. Then it is revealed that British Intelligence had hacked into the vote counting machines, and was ready and willing to change those results if it had been for the Republicans. How do we know they didn’t actually rig the election? How effective do you think Obama would be in his second term? How legitimate would his government seem? The real worst case scenario here is that the best party for Egypt wins fairly, but then is so tarnished by the stigma of the model my opponent proposes that they are forced out. These elections must be fair; they must be seen to be fair.