Democracy is the best ruling system

FRAMEWORKI shall start by offering some definitions, and then go on to present a yardstick for this debate. After that, I would like to offer some rebuttals and present my constructive in ultimately affirming my baseline today, being that democracy presents a genuine advantage for a free and fair representation of the people.DEFINITIONSDemocracy is defined as "a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them" Note that this is the definition is the definition of a representative democracy, and not a direct one. The opposition talks of instability in a democracy: how is this possible under a direct democracy, where the majority rules, whilst the minority is enslaved? Hence, I infer from that mere statement that he means a representative, rather than a direct, democracy.Ruling System is defined as "the governing body of a nation, state, or community". Note here the separation between ideology and system of governance. A "conservative" or a "liberal" democracy is still a democracy nevertheless.YARDSTICKThe burden of side proposition is to show that their is no better form of government than a democracy. The burden of side opposition however is to show that there are indeed better forms of government than a democracy. But how do we define better? "Better" in this respect shall be analytical from our notions of the social contract. A “better” form of government is henceforth a government that is able to (1) govern it’s people with it’s consent, (2) to maximize freedom and civil rights, and (3) to protect the people from internal and external threats. REBUTTALS1. RE: Democracy is IrrelevantThe opposition here affirms that "democracy is irrelevant" in the modern age. However, there are two flaws with this: (1) side opposition raises this with no proof whatsoever, and hence can easily be discarded, but even if proofs are presented, they clearly ignore (2) the second problem, which is the fact that the ideas of the Great Generation and the Enlightenment has never found a more cheerful and accepting audience than today.In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals. They were off the following: Goal 1: Eradication of extreme poverty and hungerGoal 2: Achieve universal primary educationGoal 3: Promote gender equality and empower womenGoal 4: Reduce child mortality ratesGoal 5: Improve maternal healthGoal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseasesGoal 7: Ensure environmental sustainabilityThese are quite liberal and modest aims. However, it is commonly argued that these conditions cannot be recognized and fulfilled without the help of civic freedoms and equality of opportunity and condition. For example, a lack of a representative and clean democracy could hamper MDG1’s development, for the distribution of wealth will be highly condensed in one class under the presumed illiberal alternative to democracy, which is authoritarian dictatorship. Since this corruption is present, Goal 2,4,5 and 6 would be seriously hampered, as the government would be infested with illiberal corruption. [1] In a study, Angelina Sithole analyzed the corruption in Zimbabwe. She describes that corruption has made the Zimbabwean government “notorious for poor service delivery and hyper corruption”, whose effects could “endanger the lives of the citizens as the money, which should be used to finance departments like engineering or health” [2]Democracies are henceforth a precondition to meet five out of the six goals that the United Nations has subscribed to. The world needs democracy for MDG to be finished and for the world to be a better place: never before has the idea of human brotherhood hence become more important than what it is today. CONSTRUCTIVES1. Positive Correlation between Democracy and JusticeThere is a positive correlation between democracy and safety. According to Hung En Seng, liberal democracies have more complex and in some senses more professional “crime-fighting” institutions that ultimately lead to a decrease in crime rates. According to the study he conducted, organized crime rates for new democracies were on the increase, but it soon reaches a point of decrease as democratic institutions become more complicated. In the study, he noted a huge organized crime rate stalling point in developed democracies: for example, he noted that in developed liberal democracies such as Singapore, the rate of organized crime fell dramatically. Although this is counterintuitive, it is later shown that this is due to the fact that organized crime depends on extortion and cartel agreements with major industry, which would be unneeded in a liberal democracy. [3]There is also an expected correlation between quality of judiciary and form of governance. In a illiberal dictatorship, the judiciary is the legislative and the executive. However, in a liberal democracy, the judicial is divided, and the division of government is ultimately the only thing that provides freedom for the people. An empirical example for this is the United States: as Alexander de Tocqueville notes in his "Democracy in America", "an American judge can only pronounce a decision when litigation has arisen, he is only conversant with special cases, and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before the court". However, he notes a stark contrast between judges in France and in America. In America, the constitution is a "detached whole, which, as it represents the determination of the whole people, is no less binding on the legislator than on the private citizen" i.e. the interpretation of the Constitution is open to all. However, in illiberal regimes like France, he notes that "the supreme power would in fact be placed in their hands, since they alone would have the right of interpreting a constitution." [4]We can conclude from this that the private citizen in a democratic society is much less likelier to experience organized crimes and even much less to experience judicial injustice in a democracy when contrasted with a dictatorship.2. Positive Correlation between Democracy and RightsA study of 25 countries conducted by Freedom House was released in 2009 which affirmed something that has already been theoretical expected; that democratic countries are very unlikely to violate human rights. The theoretical decision behind this is that regimes that violate human rights are unlikely to retain support from the electorate in a democracy, and henceforth, for the sake of staying in power, they satisfy the public's imagination. The researchers found a statiscally significant difference in the HR index of these dictatorships vs. the HR index of these liberal democracy.Two control cases shall be taken into consideration here: Belarus and Latvia. Latvia has a significantly higher democracy index than Belarus, the only European country to be under a dictatorship. Unsurprisingly, the study also showed that Lativa has higher press independence, lower corruption and even better governance than the illiberal regime of Belarus. If we look back at our criterion, any country that has violated human rights no longer have a legally binding "social contract", as the main goal of the contract in the first place is to establish an impartial state that will protect the rights of the people. [5]3. The Abstract Case for DemocracyThe legally binding social contract given in the last argument shall be explored in this argument. There are two flaws in a illiberal regime: (1) is that they govern without the consent of the people, and (2) is that they do not have a contract whatsoever with the people. A legal contract is a legally binding document in which both sides would be mutually benefitted by the desired results of it. However, in an illiberal regime, the only good the people get out of it is punishment: as we have proven in our last argument, their is a general trend that states that the lower the democracy, the more non-existent human rights are. If we were to take this into conisderation, then the social contract is void. The government has the ability to protect men from the violations of their rights that could hypothetically take place in a state of nature; however, when this ability is further used to press down and clamp on rights, then the state has failed to do its duty.If we were to take the first condition into consideration, we also find out that the consent of the ruled is what gives the legitimacy to the social contract: why would you need to be protecting those whom you protect, if they do not want in anyway whatsoever to have your protection. Since humans are equal, those who rule without their own consent has the "right to ignore the state" as Mr. Herbert Spencer says of it. In a democracy, the consent of the ruled is final: they participate in elections to show that they are actually interested in the democratic process. Rights are given: hence, a government that truly fulfills it's duty can only be a democratic government.THE RESO. IS AFFIRMED!CITATIONS[1] http://www.kas.de...[2] http://www.ajssh.leena-luna.co.jp...(3)/AJSSH2013(2.3-04).pdf[3] Democracy and Organized Crime Activities: Evidence from 59 Countries[4] https://www.marxists.org...[5] http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de...