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

ContextThe civil conflict that we have seen around the middle east has not been for some arbritrary ideal of democracy. That's why there is so much support for anti-democratic extremists, and the very reason why we're having this debate. These are people who've been oppressed for generations. They've been living under the shackles of cruel dictators. For them, the key release from this haven't been the democratic governments of the world, who have only supported the dictators. It has been religion. God is just, so if the state absolutely submits to God the people will be free and happy. That's why the unofficial anthem of the Arab Spring was the chanting and shouting of "Allahu akbar", not "democracy akbar". The problem is that this is a myth. History teaches us that theocracies are just as cruel as dictatorships. Sharia law is nothing short of mysogynistic, cruel, and dangerous. Most importantly, however, it's uncompromising. At the heart of all democracy is the need to reach mutual consensus and agreement - it is prima face irrational to use democracy as the basis for allowing anti-democracy parties to win an election. The harm is twofold - first, democracy is undermined, and secondly, the welfare of the people, as measured by commonly accepted human rights, is also undermined. I agree with my opponent that democracy should be absolutely encouraged - I disagree that my model undermines it. If anything, CIA rigging supports democracy in the world of the Arab spring. Legitimate governanceFirst, my opponent argued that a legitimate government is important, because through democracy the people can achieve self-determination. That relies on two things. First, it must recognise that the people might want to change their mind. That's why democratic countries hold regular elections, not just one-off events. This requires that the parties in power need to actually respect democracy. If they do not, then the right of the people to self determination ceases with that election. Secondly, it must mean that the election was conducted fairly in the first place. Since the extremists do not respect the political process, they are the most likely to commit voter fraud, undermining the actual will of the people. We have seen this happen in numerous other post-war countries in that part of the world, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The people have not been dying for democracy, they have been dying to be free of dictators. Extremists are essentially the same. There is no moral issue as the country still makes the decision of which moderates get elected. Many moderates oppose the USA, something the CIA is unlikely to support, but they should still assign votes fairly to these candidates to allow Egypt the right to self-determination. Remember that the only requirement for being non-extremist is the willingness to compromise, so you can have both self-determination and no extremists in power. The people cannot be trusted because they have a false impression of the nature of religious governance as outlined in my context. The US can, at the very least, give them their right to self-determination back by not allowing another dictator-like party to take control. All this does not stop extremists being a part of the government, so they can raise issues from an alternative perspective etc. That is important. However, they should never become the ruling party so that the ideals of the revolution continue to be upheld. Effect on electionI agree that elections provide much needed accountability. That's why I think it's strange my opponent want uncompromising candidates to win, who are unlikely to allow future elections as they would compromise their policy. I disagree that this will make people suck up to the US, as this won't increase their chances of getting elected. I'm not advocating US-favorable parties winning, I'm advocating moderates winning. If they say they will not compromise on their platform, they should not win the election. Beyond that, the US should not interfere. This ensures also that the governments are still accountable to the people. Effect on USAThe mechanism is really simple - subtract the required number of votes from extremist parties if there is a statistical probability they will win, and add them equally to all the moderate candidates. The statistical methods for rigging elections are extremely robust so I don't think they're a major point of contention in this debate. Exit polls generally only show up if rigging has been significant, while the sort of rigging that would be required here is only a few percentage points (given the number of candidates in these elections one can expect them to be close). I think we'll just have to take the CIA's word for it that they're very good at covert operations. But even if the USA was totally honest and open about rigging the elections, I don't think that will instantly translate into anti-USA hatred, because the USA will be protecting their freedom and interests in doing so. If the people want democracy, then US operations to ensure the continued survival of democracy can only be a good thing. If people want no dictators, then stopping dictators from coming to power is cool too. What will actually happenUnder my model, you're likely to see the religious candidates saying that they will compromise in any post-election scenario. Since Islam places such a great importance on honesty, simply paying lip-service to this is enough to turn extremist candidates into moderate candidates. Why is that good? I'm a little short on characters so please forgive me if I just list the reasons. I can elaborate on this in later rounds. More accountability for government, as it ensures elections happen (better to intervene now than wait for another Arab spring) Compromises will moderate any concessions made to human rights Compromises will ensure foreign powers (particularly Israel) do not see reigeme as a threat, minimising wars Compromises will ensure more freedom for the people These factors combined will mean a higher standard of living and better economy (especially since tourism is so important to the economies of that part of the world) Compromises will allow for more issues to be brought to the table, meaning a greater focus on things like environmental issues Compromises are democratic, which is my opponent's big principle The basic point is that compromises are awesome. Effect on the CIAUnder normal circumstances, the CIA engages in torture, assassination and kidnapping in the name of US security. My model provides an assurance to the citizens of these countries that the CIA will not do these things to their political opponents. They will simply stop them winning elections. Rather than engaging in violence, the CIA can thus redirect their efforts to promoting peace through peaceful means. This is beneficial for the intelligence agency as It promotes trust, ensuring better-quality intelligence It is more consistant with both the US constitution and the executive orders relating to the CIA It affirms human rights It protects democracy and good diplomatic relations It provides a model for other agencies to generally make the world a freer place, and a model within the USA for justice (ie supporting anti-USA candidates fairly) ConclusionIf my opponent really opposed the colonial narratives of the past, he would not allow candidates who espouse them to be elected. The arab spring presents both an oppertunity and a threat. The threat is that a extremist will come to power, take it all away, and then as has happened so often before, crack down on the population with ridiclious human rights abuses to prevent them from rising upagainst his rule, as they did with their predecessors. The oppertunity is for a new paradigm for politics in the region - for true democracy. Replacing one tyrant with another is always dangerous. True democracy is always good. Let us protect it. The resolution is affirmed.