Democratization

I thank bsh1 for his opening arguments!My Refutations"Democracy is a desirable form of government""The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority."I actually beg to differ, as this isn't necessarily true. Take former democratically elected Egyptian President, Mohammed Morsi. For those of you who don't know, Morsi changed the Egyptian Constitution to grant himself authoritarian powers. Morsi not only held executive power, he held legislative power; the right to make and pass laws by himself. He even went as far to grant himself as "Egypt's new Phaoraoh" and usurped all state powers. In this case, the democratically elected leader in Egypt was no better than than Egypt's former dictator Hosni Muburak. This certainly didn't benefit the people; instead they decided to rebel. [1]"Nondemocratic regimes have killed millions."Although this is the case in a few extreme authoritarian governments in history, the push for democracy leads to mass murder too. In the Syrian Civil War, where rebels are "fighting for democracy" the death toll is now at 140 000, with 7 626 of them being children, and 5 064 of them being women. What my opponent fails to realize is that the push for democracy also results in war, thus leading to the killings of innocent men, women, and children. [2]"totalitarian communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions"Let's look at a war we've never forgotten, the very war that disgusted American citizens of that time and eventually caused American soldiers to pull out. The very war I'm talking about is Vietnam War. Innocent Vietnamese citizens were massacred by American soldiers, and American soldiers themselves were killed by the thousand. But at what cost? It was all in the name of "stopping communism" thereby imposing democracy on Vietnamese citizens. In what was known as the My Lai massacre, several hundred innocent Vietnamese citizens were brutally murdered by American soldiers. In total, 3 million Vietnamese died during this "war for democracy," with 2 million of them being citizens. The point that I'm making is that "imposing democracy" is rarely done peacefully and leads to just as much death as some authoritarian regimes themselves.[3]"Sub-point B: Mass violations of human rights are the worst moral wrongs"In contrast, war is a moral wrong. War is the very thing that leads to these human rights violation. Since democracy is often "imposed" by the U.S. intervening through violence, there's no moral obligation to commit an immoral act.My ArgumentsIs Democracy a desirable form of government if a non-democratically elected regime is benevolent to the people?Benevolent DictatorsSub-point 1: Fidel Castro (in power 1959-2008)Take Fidel Castro, former dictator of Cuba for instance; under his rule, Cuba retained a high socio-economic well-being. Castro ruled Cuba for nearly half a century, but yet important factors such as HDI and infant mortality gradually increased. In fact, under Castro's rule, Cuba's adult literacy rate went up to 99.8% Suprisingly, America's literacy rate is only a mere 0.2% greater as a democratic nation. Castro extended social services to all classes of society, and health services were free of charge. Not only that, but every citizen was guaranteed employment. In some ways, Cuba is more successful than America and other democratic countries; especially in terms of education and healthcare.[4][5]Sub-point 2: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (in power 1921-1945)Atatürk was the first president in Turkey, and is commonly known as the founding father of the nation. Under his rule, the Ottoman Empire (absolute monarchy) was overthrown, secularism (no religious rule) was established, and women were given rights. Not only that, but he "pursued a policy of neutrality," and conducted friendly relations with countries bordering Turkey. You're probably wondering, "Sounds like a great democratic leader!" Actually Atatürk, like Castro, was a dictator that was not democratically elected, but yet was still worked for the best interests of the people.[6]Sub-point 3: Josip Broz Tito (in power 1953-1980)Tito, President of Yugoslavia, was recognized as a "benevolent dictator" due his "successful diplomatic and economic policies." Tito was a prime supporter of the Non-Aligned Movement, which Cuban leader Fidel Castro (whom I've mentioned in Sub-point 1) described the orginization as "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression ,occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics". [7] [8]Economic Benefits of Authoritarian RegimesPro: "When examined by economic freedom, 31 out of the 34 most free nations or self-governing regions are democratic in nature."Actually, political freedom isn't required for economic success. A study done by the American concluded that a country doesn't require a democracy for economic success. The study stated this: "Between 1991 and 2005, the countries that were economically free but politically repressed grew at 6.28% annually. Comparatively, the countries that were both economically and politically free grew at 2.62%." Therefore, "authoritarian regimes" can make better economic decisions for their citizens.[9]The U.S. is only promoting imperialism, and has usually been unsuccessfulDoes the U.S. have a moral obligation to commit an immoral act?The resolution: "The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations"Pro states that democratization can be a gradual process that is encouraged by the U.S., however, this usually isn't the case. When has the U.S. every "promoted democracy" peacefully? The answer is, they haven't. "Promoting democracy" has only promoted U.S. Imperialism. Does the U.S. have a moral obligation to storm into a country, and try to promote their ways, just because they think it's best for the people. The answer is no. Most countries haven't asked the U.S. for foreign intervention. Did Iraq say, "Help U.S, come invade our country!" We as westerners think our ways our so superior that we haven't even though about what the citizens want. All it has led to is war, which is an immoral act.Failures of Promoting DemocracyThe U.S. was supposedly "promoting democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is now the 7th most corrupt country, with Afghanistan being even worse; 3rd most corrupt. According to recent reports, 461 000 civilians are estimated to have been killed during the Iraq War. As I mentioned before, in Vietnam, 2 million civilians were killed. Let's look at the political result of these 3 wars: Iraq and Afghanistan are in the top 10 most corrupt countries in the world, and Vietnam is still politically totalitarian. Promoting democracy has never been a peacefull, gradual process when the U.S. intervenes.[10][11][12]To summarize:1. Promoting democracy has usually been a failure; especially when it comes to th U.S. intervening.2. Some "authoritarian regimes" were equal or better than democracy.3. The U.S. has no moral obligation to commit an immoral act, war.Sources: 1.http://www.cbc.ca... 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.bbc.com...4.http://thecubaneconomy.com...5.http://www.britannica.com...6.http://www.bbc.co.uk...;7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://en.wikipedia.org...;9.http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...;10.http://www.bbc.com...;11.http://www.reuters.com...;12. http://www.bbc.com...;