This House Would Impose Democracy!

FRAMEWORK: Here I shall outline several criterions in order to provide a stable basis for the future of this debate, and possibly my case. I shall here outline several analytical axioms that would naturally result from the definitions of ‘democracy’ and ‘imposition’ as has been defined in R1 by both sides. However, before I do this, I shall provide conditions upon a neg. ballot. If I were to prove that imposed democracies are unable to be beneficial for societies (i.e they fail) then I have negated the resolution. If I were able to prove and demonstrate that imposed democracies are immoral, then I have negated the resolution. Observations Ob. 1:As impose is “to force upon” an imposed democracy should be defined as a “democracy that was forced upon” Ob. 2: If “impose” were I impose x on situation y, then situation y was exclusive of condition x until the imposition. Ob. 3: Apart from this, I was an internal/external higher power in situation y, for if I weren’t one of those, the imposition of condition x would fail. Ob. 4: If I wanted to impose d onto country a, which currently has a d1 regime, then the word impose entails that regime d1 did not yield to condition a, which meant that I had to impose d on country a. Ob. 5: Then it is recognized that I was the external higher power as described in (Observation III), which in context meant that I was a more powerful foreign nation. Henceforth, we come to the affirmation that all imposed democracies are implemented via foreign intervention. But let us first affirm that imposed democracies may be from within; then impose entails change from a status quo to another. Ob. 6: The opposite of a democracy is a dictatorship, and unless it is a transitional government, dictatorships seldom desire a transition to democracy. Albeit this may happen, the frequency is low. This framework provides a clear view of the true nature of an imposed democracy, and provides a framework for all discussions of “imposed democracies” in the future. With this, I shall present three main contentions that ultimately conclude with the only viable conclusion; that imposed democracies are failures and immoral. 1. Immorality of Imposed Democraciesa) Imposed Democracies are Coerced States Analytically, if something is imposed, then the ones who are the subjects of the imposed do not have the rights to choose it, and this violates the rights of liberty. Here, I am making the argument that some people might want democracy, whilst others might not. Essentialist teleology assumes util., and ultimately, if one people were to want democracy, then via the util. principle of the “greatest good” the people would not need any imposition of any type of democracy. b) Imposed Democracies are Illegitimate Let us talk about the principle of legitimacy here for a second. A government is determined via legitimacy. Accordingly, the origins of the government are the most important thing in the historicist tendency. As we can see, the most successful regimes are the ones that have been elected, either via bullet or ballot. There has barely been a government that was “successful” per se from an imposed government. The conditions for success are determined in the formula: existence, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The most successful governments of this world are all legitimate; they are not puppets i.e. they do not run via imposed and coercion of another external power.Then what is legitimate? The principle of legitimacy consists of the following: the government came to control via means that encompasses the whole people. The principle of legitimacy also includes "consent" If democracy were to be imposed, then the consensual contracts of the people in relation to laws and government would be diminished, allowing for the refusal to accept such authorities. The opposition may argue that "democracy, pffft, what do you mean no consent?" However, as we shall see, imposed democracies have weak central authority. Nevertheless, the fact that democracy has to be imposed can be said to be a reflection of a non-consensual contract between the man and the state. 2. Imposed Democracies do not worka) IraqThe main concept of imposed democracies is that a system of governance has to be imposed by some other society. This does not work. My first main example is Iraq. After the overthrowing of the Saddamist Regime, Iraq became a virtual anarchy with a power vacuum following the power overthrow. A democracy was imposed, but this democracy faced many flaws; most particularly, it failed to have any basis of legitimate support. Voter turnout in the latest nation-wide Iraqi elections was 62%, which was considered wholly low. The complications have led to the following to happen:1) High CorruptionIraq scored a mere 16 on the TI Index, measuring it to be the sixth most corrupt country in the world. Corruption is widespread in Iraq, and ten years later, a TI report shows that in the year 2010, 56% of Iraqis have been engaged in some form of corruption. Accordingly to some analysts, "you can't get a job in the government unless you pay $10,000 dollars" This is highly shocking, but is characteristic of an imposed democracy. 2) Sectarian ProblemsBecause of the implications of the democratic ideal, Iraq now faces huge sectarian problems. After the "corrupte" election of the Islamic Dawaa Party, the Sunni minority in Iraq turned to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, now called Islamic State or IS) for support as the Shia-led government attempted to oppress the practice of their religion. This is highly characteristic of an imposed democracy; it ignores the complications that a democracy might present.3) Weak Central AuthorityIraqi central authority is wholly weak. This is because of the mere fact that the Iraqi people do not accept the democratic government as they see it as a foreign-imposed government. I connect this to the principle of legitimacy that I have just presented: for a country's government to be wholly accepted, it must not be imposed by some other foreign country. In Iraq, this is more than present: the collapse of the Iraqi Army in the Sunni Rebellion and the rise of the Islamic State in the Northern Regions of Iraq, and the rise of YPG as the only effective fighting force is clearly a show that the weak central authority of the Iraqi government (an imposed democracy) has caused the rise of many other anti-humanitarian groups.b) AfghanistanAfghanistan is another example of an imposed democracy. After the 2001 Invasion, Afghanistan has "gone down the hill" Ever after since the anti-communist insurgency, Afghanistan has been controlled by authoritarian governments. There is no principle of legitimacy in Afghanistan. It could be noted that Afghanistan is possibly the most corrupt contry in the world, with a very low TI index score. This is because of the nature of imposed democracies; imposed democracies demands that their is an election before the institution building process has been complete, which allows for incompetent politicians to take control. This was the case of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, there are many cases of corruption; the ANA has been described as a complete failure, and the main core of the Afghanistan National Army is wholly ineffectual.In an open letter by TI, corruption was the result of the lack of dialogue and anti-corruption institutions in the country. We can see that this is part of the problems in Iraq as well; imposed democracies lack any ability to create new institutions after the democratic ideal has been imposed.3. Imposed Democracies are Unjusta) Democracy = Util. The general will shall rule is the totalitarian principle of democracy. Now, there are two types of democracy; liberal democracies, and direct democracies. Direct democracies are democracies in which the will of the majority is favored. Liberal democracies are democracies in which the will of the majority is followed in a way that does not support the oppression of the minority. But even in a liberal democracy, liberties and oppression of others may follow in a manner. Let us apply the definition of democracy as provided by the opp. here: "government by the people; a form of government in which thesupreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by themor by their elected agents under a free electoral system." This states that the government by the people is a direct democracy as we are talking about here, for the word people when used in a democratic ideal often refers to the majority. Henceforth, democracy necessarily turns into a mobocracy, in which the people choose and eliminate all opposition to it. This mobocracy was present in Athens, when the Athenian people voted to execute Socrates. This mobocracy was present in Germany, where the elected agents of the German state carried out a systematic killing of the Jewish minority. How is this justified?But even in a liberal society, tragedies like this happen. Need I remind you of the Indian Criminalization of Homosexuality. Love is not a crime, so it can be said, but conceive here that since the conservative majority of India supported this criminalization, it went ahead with barely any opposition. How is this just, or even moral? If the thesis of "democracy is moral" is to be defended, then the opposition must defend the infringements upon the minority's rightsb) Imposed Democracies are UndemocraticThe main principle of democracy is that the people get to choose. This principle of self-determination is defended in the first part of the opp. argument. Then let us not pass the buck here; the principle of self-determination means that no coercion from the outside is to occur. Analytically, imposed means that this coercion from external power is to happen. If self-determination is the people choosing the government, then the people should have all the rights to choose a dictatorship without any other external influences. With that, I conclude the debate case. I hold the reso. negated! Citations in Comments