This House Would Impose Democracy!

FRAMEWORK:So far the opp. has accepted all preliminaries of an imposed democracy, so not much to be said here. Objections:O1. "Peace" and DemocracyThis is one of the most delusive assumptions about democracy; that it provides peace and tranquility to countries that have democracies with it. Need I raise example of how Athens coerced it's democratic sister cities into submission? After the defeat of Persian Invasions, the anti-Persian Delian League was turned into a de facto imperial state of this newly created Athenian democracy. It was because of this that Sparta soon launched invasions of Attica. This is not the only instance of this happening: in India and Pakistan, we can see two democracies go to war repeatedly and individually after even the slightest and most trivial skirmish. How can democratic governments be friendly to everyone when we have seen democratic United States of America go to war against Iraq? How can democracies like Israel still claim to be acting within the limits of their rights when they attacked Gaza in an attempt to retake and destroy the democratically elected Hamas-Fatah pact? Clearly, there are some huge flaws in the opposition's assertions that democratic countries are peaceful, for we have seen that throughout history, democracies and dictatorships have had the same proportion of wars caused by both forms of government.O2. Justice and Equality for allEqual voting rights is not justice and equality: this could be characterized by the fact that many nations have voted themselves into tyranny. To call democracy flawless is absurd; we are in the ever increasing process of piecemeal social engineering, and there is nothing that could be considered "perfect" Democracy is one of the least perfect forms of government that man has ever devised, in my opinion. Let us then say that this justice and equality is obtained: then I should say that there is no liberty between man? For the only just and equal society is socialism, where a man's mind is dictated by the society. The principles of open society is that a man may do whatever he likes as long as he bears the responsibility. Equality is only achieved via the violation of liberty of the rich. Apart from this, we always come back to the issue of mob-rule: how is it just for the mob to decide the fate of those in the minority? Socrates died because of mob rule, not because he deserved to die. It was this mob-rule that ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews, and many more dissenders in the Nazi state. It was ultimately mob rule that led to Mao's Great Leap Foward campaign and many other mob-based campaigns that killed people. O3. Imposed Democracy CS #1: Iraq and AfghanistanFirstly, the opposition talks as if I dismiss the fall of the Neo-Ba'ath regime. I do not; however, my assertion is that imposed democracies failed, and I have used Iraq as my case example. Nevertheless, I shall respond to some of the points that the opposition asserted. His first assertion is that the Iraq War was much more than about democracy: I know, and we are not in a debate about the Iraq War, but we are in a debate about imposed democracies. The imposed democracy of Iraq, albeit it serves a wholly different purpose from "most imposed democracies" is still an imposed democracy. The assertion that Iraq will have a stable democracy in the future is wholly hopeless. The origins of the Iraqi democratic state was imposed by a foreign force that was invading and occupying the country. All the opponent does is that he asserts my point that the Iraqi Democratic State failed miserably: however, he completely ignores my example about Afghanistan. I take this as a liberty to talk about Afghanistan.Afghanistan is another example of a failed imposed democracy; during the recent elections, millions of voters turned up to vote, but found their votes invalidated. Afghanistan exemplifies one of the problems of an imposed democracy: it ignores previous preliminary conditions and sociological structure, which often complicates the issue. The issue of religion in Iraq was discussed: Iraq turned into a de facto mob-rule after the Islamic Dawaa Party (a Shia Islamist party) took power and oppressed the Iraqi Sunnis. The issue of Afghan democracy was due to "warlords" Prior to the Taliban, Afghanistan was ruled by "warlords" who controlled each territory. After the installation of the Taliban, these warlords were pushed and suppressed from power. However, after the overthrow of the Taliban, these warlords came back. Democracy is impossible in such an environment; these warlords began a campaign of civil disobedience, and 21st century politics quickly became feudal politics, which warlords regaining control of small "fiefdom" type states. The recent elections was an exemplification of a conflict between two warlords: Ashraf Ghani and Abdallah Abdallah battled for control over Afghanistan, only to find that a power-sharing government made by the UN was to reign. Because of this power-sharing, Afghanistan's development is literally put on a halt. Because of this, the Taliban and even the Islamic State is making inroads into Afghanistan and the weak central authority is still accompanied by huge corruption on the government side. We can see many correlations between the case of Afghanistan and the case of Iraq: (1) an imposed democracy ignores previous sociological conditions, (2) an imposed democracy faces low/weak central authority, and (3) an imposed democracy is much more vulnerable to compulsive corruption than other types of government. 'O4. Unjustified Nature of MobocracyMobocracy cannot ever be justified, and is the worst form of government after anarchy. Mobocracy is often harder to protect against. In John Stuart Mill's words: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." How hard is it to resist the forces of the majority? I remember once that I was in a Model United Nations meeting, and via discussing the question of the Kurds, ECOSOC adopted two resolutions that undermined the whole nationality and independence of the Iraqi state. Is this just? Or perhaps should I say: was this moral? It ultimately comes down to the fact that it is much harder to resist the majority than to resist the minority: in America, it was the majority of the whites in the Southern State that supported the Jim Crow laws. In Germany, it was the majority of the non-Jewish Germans that supported some type of anti-Jewish action. It was the majority in India that supported the anti-LGBTQ laws. Democracy got Socrates killed. If it were the minority who voted for the Jim Crow laws, then the majority could easily take up arms. If it were the majority that supported the Jews in their struggle in Germany, then the Holocaust would have never happened. If it were the majority that supported liberty for all, then they would have fought wholly against the actions of the minority: ultimately, it is much harded to be protected from mobocracy than tyranny. There is no defense for the minority in such mobocratic societies.Even if the opposition affirms that these are cherry-picked examples, then he should comprehend the fact that many business tycoons, who earned their money in a lawful manner, are now facing progressive tax rates that attempt to redistribute this money to other people in which they have no obligations too. This is a form of mob rule: this Robin Hood program is called redistribution, and it threatens to redistribute the money of all who earned it. Is this just? The State is not Robin Hood; the state protects the "people" and not the "majority"O5. Democracy can only come internallyThe assertion that democracy cannot come in a dictatorship is a lie. We have seen many dictatorships fall in the face of overwhelming support for democracy: Egypt and Libya are recent examples, but we can go back and this could be observed throughout history. The English Civil War was an example of this; so was the American Revolution. The internal revolt against the French Kings, the "Prague Spring" and many other anecdotes seem to suggest that democracy can only come internally. The assertion that every country wants democracy, and no country should be exempted from "the spread of democracy" even if they do not want it, is a complete lie. “To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive and not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justifiable to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in any other respect.” This is a fundamental attribute of democracy; if democracy need be imposed, then the people clearly do not want a democratic society. In Syria, it would be absurd to impose democracy in the presence of such radical groups (like the Islamic State and J. al-Nusra) who ought to kill 30% of the population. That was why many Syrians chose Assad. If one were to truly support democracy and elections, then one must support the right for the people to have a non-democratic form of government. What the opposition stresses is that he would allow for other countries to come into nations, and establish a rule of control that they want, and not necessarily the people! I can see no justifications for what the opposition and this resolution oughts to do de facto. Apart from this, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a further 3rd clause, which says the following:These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Upon looking at the Charter of the United Nations, the full implications of Iraq and Afghanistan in this field is not totally recognized. UN Charter outlines the exercise of this power within the realms of national independence and intergrity in it's first chapter. Henceforth, I hold the resolution negated!Sources in comments