Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

Can I first say, the research I’ve done suggests a lot of people on this site like to refer to you as a ‘she’ because of your profile pic, there’ll be none of that coming from me! Before I begin I will seek to clarify a comment that was made (I currently don't have the ability to comment due to technical difficulties with DDO's text message identity validation in NZ). Although the methodology to be used to support the flourishing of democracy, I don’t believe anyone has a problem with diplomacy. I am talking about when diplomacy fails, when national leaders refuse to respond positively to calls for change from outside. This is, after all, why I’m talking about intervention. Well then, without any further ado I will open the debate. Good luck to you, Con. The title of the debate is unfortunately a bit wordy, but it’s a difficult one to adequately convey in a few words. The idea however is both well-known and often pondered – that when something goes wrong in a third world country, for example, a head of state is assassinated or a government suppresses the rights of its citizens, such an injustice may move us to want something done about it. The decision to forego the respect of a nation's sovereignty is, of course, not the first step that should be taken when considering ways to sustain democratic processes, but all too often a particular situation will raise the heckles of NGOs or other interested parties. The media get brought into the fray, and suddenly the world knows about it, and every man and his dog has an opinion about what should be done. I’d like to defend the following stance in relation to the topic: that if a country is capable of entering the country and restoring general order, it should. Here are my reasons: Can implies ought. According to Lloyd Eby, lecturer in philosophy at George Washington University in Washington DC [1], this is the dominant view among ethical theorists. Democracy is needed to ensure human rights are protected. Without democracy, the brass at the top are free to do as they please, and the continued wellbeing of citizens is reliant on nothing but the good will of its politicians. Citizens are not capable of restoring democracy themselves. Though I don’t have any statistics to back up this claim, I would posit that in the majority of third world countries, the people that have the means are the people that are already in power or are closely affiliated with the government through corporate or family ties. Diplomacy will not resolve the issues. As mentioned previously, a country would have no need to intervene if a country is responsive to diplomatic measures like trade embargoes. Wider authority can be sought, namely the UN. The UN is probably the best arbiter of disputes about democracy since it has been responsible for the creation of standards of human rights. Intervention creates stability in the medium-to-long-term. If done correctly, the post-intervention government will be stable because the people are enabled to have their say and feel represented. Con, you’ll need to knock down all 6 arguments in order to win this debate, and after that I hope you intend to make a case of your own as to why NOT intervening IS an obligation. To shed the burden of proof by suggesting that capable societies aren’t obliged to intervene but would be justified if they did would be a rather lazy line to take. Whatever you do, make some sort of positive case for your position rather than just attack my arguments! So there it is. I await your response, OMGJustinBieber. References: 1. . http://www.tparents.org...