Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism

The Resolution Thanks to Pro for an interesting and timely topic.Pro gives the full resolution as "Democratic governments do not derive their authority from democracy, but from inflicting the most terror upon a population than any other organization within the same geographic region." We need to understand what is meant by "terror" in the context of the resolution. The debate title gives it as "use of terrorism." Merriam-Webster defines:terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://www.merriam-webster.com...terror: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands terror> http://www.merriam-webster.com...There are other definitions of terror, Including "a state of intense fear"Pro then claims, "In order to host "democratic elections", an organization must monopolize the right to host elections within their geographic region. This cannot be achieved without initially resorting to the unsanctioned use of violence."To defeat the resolution I must show that it a terrorist assertion of power is not necessary for instituting democracy. History shows at least three non-violent paths to democracy.1. Fair elections by mutual consentPro wrongly equates any asserted authority with terrorism. It is vanishingly rare when two opposing parties want to hold free elections that they resort to violence to determine who will hold the election. In fact, it seems logically impossible. If A wants a fair election and B wants a free election, there is no reason to resort to violence o determine who holds the election. A and B will cooperate. It's only when one side does not want democracy that violence would be used to seize power and then hold an unfair or rigged election. It is not true that the power to hold elections must be monopolized. If both sides want democracy hey will cooperate to bring the elections.In democratic countries there are typically two or more opposing political parties. According to the resolution, one of the parties must terrorize the others in order to seize the power hold elections. That is not the case. Both cooperate in setting up and administering a fair system. For example, in the United States the parties appoint poll watchers who inspect the polling pace and the ballot process to ensure that the agreed-upon rules are obeyed. If the rules are claimed to be violated, the mater is brought to an independent judiciary who resolves the issue. Nothing that could be construed as terrorism takes place.2. Unelected regimes choosing free electionsPro is concerned about emerging democracy and cites the example of upcoming elections in Egypt. Pro claims, "only a legitimate authority can host a legitimate election in which politicians are legitimately elected into power." That's not true. An unelected regime may chose to host a free election. There are many examples of this I will cite three:Military rule in Chile gave way to democracy in process in which power was relinquished incrementally, first by allowing an Assembly to be elected and a Constitution to be instituted, and ultimately full democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org... External as well as internal political forces were at work pressuring the military to surrender power, but they did so without any process of terrorism. The previous dictator, Pinochet, had ruled with a reign of terror, but the subsequent transition from military rule to democracy was peaceful. Taiwan is another example of dictatorial rule giving way peacefully to democracy. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single-party state for forty years, until democratic reforms were mandated during the final year of authoritarian rule under Chiang Ching-kuo. The reforms were promulgated under Chiang's successor, Lee Teng-hui, which culminated in the first ever direct presidential election in 1996. , http://en.wikipedia.org...Spain is yet another example of a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to democracy. "The willingness of Spain’s political leaders to compromise, plus a growing level of economic development, allowed Spain to near-seamlessly evolve from Franco’s dictatorial state to a democratic monarchy." http://www.e-ir.info... It did take some time, during which a series of elections marked the transition to full democracy. 3. External monitoring of electionsAnother method is to use an outside organization to supervise the transition to democracy. Of course, the unelected regime may choose not to set up a fair system, but contrary to the resolution, they clearly may choose to do so. The United Nations Department of Political Affairs, through its Electoral Assistance Division (EAD), aids the transition to democracy. http://www.un.org...For example, the United Nations provided supervision of fair elections in Cambodia.A major step towards normalization occurred with the elections of May 1993. Twenty parties took part in the elections. UNTAC oversaw the electoral campaign and registration of voters, as well as the elections. Over 4.2 million people -- nearly 90 per cent of the registered voters -- cast their ballots to elect a Constituent Assembly. The head of UNTAC declared the elections free and fair. In September, the Constitution was proclaimed and an new government, led by two prime ministers, was inaugurated. http://www.un.org...There is the start of the UN monitoring elections in Libya, though whether it succeeds remains to be seen. http://www.un.org...Election monitoring has also been provided by the Organization of American States, the British Commonwealth, and the Council of Europe. http://tinyurl.com... These organizations monitored many transitions to democracy, including in South America, Eastern Europe and Asia.The United States as monitored elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. SummaryIt's possible that attempts to transition from unelected government to democracy may fail in Egypt or elsewhere, Failure means that some organized force does not want democracy, either the regime in power or one of the emerging political factions. That's not inevitable, and it's clearly false that organizing of elections requires "terror." I have given three peaceful means by which it is possible to accomplish the transition to democracy. I have cited many examples of peaceful transition to democracy being accomplished.The resolution is negated.