BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Transparency can result in normalisation

While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end. The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not.[1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%).[2] [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013 [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013
Self defined feminists do not have the right to dictate how other women relate to their femininity

A ban is a very blunt instrument with which to attack a practice. Banning beauty contests would do little to destroy the ideal of beauty as it is prevalent in many other areas of society which are unrelated to Beauty Pageants such as advertising, fashion and the entertainment industry. The only result of a ban will simply be to reduce the choice of women – who of course do choose to participate. Choice is fundamentally a good thing and everyone should have as much choice as possible so long as they are not limiting the choice of others.
Beauty contests are patriarchal

There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success.   Moreover doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect.  Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn’t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.
Beauty contests objectify women

There is nothing wrong with judging people primarily on their physical prowess - we do this all the time in competitive sport, where fitness and strength are major determinants of success.   Moreover doing so is little different from judging people on non-physical qualities such as intellect.  Every competition, of every kind, values certain qualities over others - we recognise that being able to lift heavy weights isn’t the prime definition of human worth, but we can still give prizes for weightlifting; similarly, we can give a prize to a beautiful woman for her beauty without implying that beauty is all that matters about anyone.
Beauty contests are culturally insensitive

Riots often have many causes and it is only the spark that is picked up upon. The example of the riots in Kaduna is misleading; there were serious underlying tensions that were the root cause.[1] Beauty contests, like sport, can be an important focus of national or regional pride. Despite the declining popularity of competitions such as Miss World in the UK, they hold an important cultural place in many parts of the world. The victories in recent years of Miss India, Miss Turkey and Miss Nigeria in Miss World competitions made many Indians, Turks and Nigerians proud, and were seen as symbolic of those countries’ progress in competing with more powerful countries on their own terms. [1] Astill, James, ‘The truth behind the Miss World riots’, The Guardian, 30 November 2002
Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue

Beauty contests are part of the system that values women solely on their appearance.  It is better to break down that system than seek to work within it. Beauty contests fail to challenge harmful political attitudes to women. Despite paying lip-service to feminist keywords such as empowerment and self-confidence, they do nothing concrete to aid the liberation of women; indeed, by reinforcing looks as the most important feminine quality, they harm women’s liberation in general. The fact that the organisers of Miss World 2002 had no problem with holding the contest in Nigeria at the same time as a high-profile case in which a woman was due to be stoned for adultery exposes the competition’s hypocrisy.[1] Assigning scholarship funds based on physical appearance rather than academic merit is unfair because it neuters the aspirations of many regardless of how hard they might work. [1] Bloom, Alexis and Cassandra Herrman, Frontline World, ‘Nigeria – The Road North’, PBS, January 2003.
Beauty contests are patriarchal

Beauty contests promote an ideal of female beauty to which only a minority of women can realistically aspire, but which adds to the pressure on all women to conform to it. This can be harmful to women by encouraging dieting, eating disorders and cosmetic surgery, or simply by making them feel inadequate and ugly by comparison to this ‘ideal’ that is promoted. Moreover, these contests force the models and contestants to look even slimmer and perfect all the time, thus encouraging anorexia and bulimia. Naomi Wolf argues that "in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our un-liberated grandmothers." Why? Because of how "cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us." [1] This pressure has therefore forced a backwards step that reduces freedom of women when in almost every other area of life there have been great advances. [1] Naomi Wolf, ‘The Beauty Myth’.
Beauty contests objectify women

Women in beauty contests are judged on their physical appearance rather than on any other qualities they may possess (the existence of a ‘talent’ element in many such contests is all very well, but ugly women simply aren’t going to win). Judging women, but not men, primarily on their looks contributes to the subjugation of women because other qualities, such as intelligence, are not seen as part of ideal femininity and therefore not as things to which women should aspire. Ideal masculinity, while in itself potentially damaging to men, tends to be construed in much wider and less restrictive terms - it is notable that male beauty contests, judging men on their physical appearance, are much less popular than female ones.
Beauty contests are culturally insensitive

The image of female beauty promoted by beauty contests is culturally specific and western - it doesn’t matter how many Asian women win Miss World, they can still only do so if they take part in the swimsuit competition, which may well not be considered appropriate dress in their culture. This clash of cultures has led to numerous protests, demonstrations and even violence when beauty contests are going on. There were demonstrations against Miss World by feminists and Hindu nationalists when it was held in Bangalore in 1996. Riots in Kaduna in northern Nigeria over Miss World 2002 left more than 200 dead and led to the contest being moved to London.[1] [1] CNN, ‘Obasanjo blames media for Miss World riots’
Beauty contests are an avenue of opportunity that women are entitled to pursue

In an environment where women are valued on solely on their appearance, and in which there are more opportunities for men, beauty contests give women an opportunity to improve their situations. Winning a beauty contest can be a first step toward a successful life in the future; the most attractive earn 12% more.[1] Many Hollywood actresses are former beauty queens, and they would not have reached their success without the beauty contests they won. In addition, the winners of high-profile beauty contests are able to publicize charities and causes they feel strongly about - they have a public platform they could not otherwise have gained. Beauty pageants can also empower in other ways: The Miss America competition is the largest provider of scholarship assistance for women in the world[2], indeed it pioneered assistance for women in higher education in the 40’s and 50’s.[3] [1] Day, Elizabeth, ‘Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital by Catherine Hakim – review’, The Observer, 28 August 2011. [2] Miss America, 'Purpose'  [3] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011
Beauty pagents are about moral than physical aesthetics

Modern Beauty pageants have mandatory talent portions and are more about establishing and striving for an ‘ideal’ than rating physical beauty.  This was specifically made mandatory by Lenora Slaughter in the 1938 Miss America Pageant in order to attract “ladies” to participate in the competitions. The modern form of the beauty pageant was designed by women in order to attract women.[1] [1] Hilary Levey Friedman, ‘There She Goes: A Trailblazing Feminist Beauty Queen’, Huffington Post, 15 March 2011
Allows the ruler to make necessary but unpopular decisions

There is little evidence that countries without elections are more willing to take difficult decisions, or able to take wise decisions, than those that face some form of election. Many petro states have failed to diversify their economies despite having the money to do so – often investing in wild ideas such as Saudi Arabia investing $84 billion in agriculture in the desert from 1985-2000.[1]   [1] Alterman, Jon B., ‘Water and National Strength in Saudi Arabia’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, March 2011, http://csis.org/files/publication/110405_Water%20and%20national%20strength%20in%20Saudi%20Arabia.pdf
Forces the ruler to find another way to placate the people

The problem with good governance and economic success as the basis of legitimacy is that a crisis of legitimacy is created whenever growth falters or corruption comes to light. Legitimacy based upon performance also has the problem that if a certain performance becomes normal then the benchmarks must be higher and higher over time to continue to provide legitimacy.[1] Having legitimacy at least in part based on periodic elections, even if these are somehow rigged, is more sustainable as the legitimacy is renewed whenever there is a new election or change in government. This has the added benefit that as fairer elections are seen as more legitimate there is a greater chance that sham elections will become real elections to ensure the regime has more legitimacy even at the risk of it being voted out -  as shown recently by Burma being willing to take the democratic route. [1] Lam, Jon-Jon, ‘Performance Legitimacy: an Unstable Model for Sustaining Power’, The Politic, 10 January 2013, http://thepolitic.org/performance-legitimacy-an-unstable-model-for-sustaining-power/
Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election

States can have elections that have almost no chance of changing the government for decades. These elections can actually set back the cause for genuine democracy. There are several reasons for this. First having elections, or marginally expanding the number of parties or franchise, so providing liberal political reform can be used to keep the opposition on side through constantly dangling the prospect of further reform. Thus Sadat in 1977 allowed elections in response to discontent over peace overtures to Israel and in 1984 following his assassination Mubarak made these elections multiparty.[1] Secondly having elections can be used to disrupt the opposition as coalitions of disparate elements are difficult to create so it will likely lead to internal squabbling and victory for the ruling party. Encouraging such squabbling will then prevent there being a single recognised opposition party or figure than can be seen as able to take over. When there is no clear path after a revolution the people are going to be much more likely to stick with the dictator they know. [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.5. http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_074099.pdf
Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.

This is simply co-opting the opposition in an attempt to allow the regime to survive longer than it would otherwise done. As Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe has found out even being in a coalition government with a dictator does not give you the power to change the outcome over the long term. He has called his election defeat “coup by ballot” reflecting the vote rigging that he believes occurred to keep President Mugabe in power.[1] The Movement may have had a significant impact during its time in government economically but it totally failed to prise the real power out of the hands of Zanu PF. [1] Smith, David, ‘Morgan Tsvangirai loses hope following election defeat’, The Guardian, 4 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/morgan-tsvangirai-mugabe-election-uprising
Having no elections is honest

Holding sham elections is fundamentally dishonest as it is asking the people to choose a government and then ignoring their choice. Not holding elections is at least honestly telling the people that they get no say in who is in power. Holding a sham election inevitably means having to lie to the people somewhere along the line; whether it is in preventing people registering, or voting, or in manipulating the results. The people usually know the result is a sham or at least are suspicious – in the latest Zimbabwean election the headlines in the newspapers included “ZANU-PF gloats over victory”.[1] Without a sham election the government can at least be honest with their people so enabling a level of trust or even a kind of contract between the two – the government and the people each lets the other get on with it. Thus for example in China trust in government in 2012 was 76% against the world average of 51%.[2] [1] Chinaka, Cris, ‘Africa and West at odds over disputed Zimbabwe election’, Reuters, 4 August 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/04/us-zimbabwe-election-idUSBRE97205J20130804 [2] Sedghi, Ami, and Rogers, Simon, ‘Do we trust our government? See how your country compares’, TheGuardian.com, 24 January 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/24/trust-in-government-country-edelman
Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections

It is hard to see what the benefit of an election that can change nothing is, but there are certainly all the costs associated with a normal election. Elections can be costly in financial terms, the United States elections cost several billion dollars but even much smaller and less extravagant elections need financing. Zimbabwe’s elections in 2013 forced the government to ask its neighbours for $85 million to carry out the polls, for a nation that is essentially bankrupt this is a lot of money.[1] Another cost is uncertainty. In fully democratic elections the uncertainty is with what the policies will be when the government changes. With sham elections the uncertainty is whether the elections will be a focus for violence. Sometimes this is during campaigning itself as with Zimbabwe in 2008 where up to 200 people were killed.[2] Otherwise violence occurs when there is a perception that an election has been stolen so the Green Movement in Iran took to the streets and was met with a violent crackdown in 2009.[3] [1] VOA News, ‘Zimbabwe Seeks Help to Cover Election Costs’, Voice of America, 10 July 2013, http://www.voanews.com/content/zimbabwe-seeks-help-to-cover-election-costs/1699194.html [2] ‘Zimbabwe: No Justice for Rampant Killings, Torture’, Human Rights Watch, 8 March 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/08/zimbabwe-no-justice-rampant-killings-torture [3] AFP, ‘Iran opposition says 72 killed in vote protests’, Google, 3 September 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaWYtGitSBRRBJkDanoZ1gwP4DBA
Allows the ruler to make necessary but unpopular decisions

Democracy and elections are about popularity but popular decisions are not always the right ones. Even mature democracies have sometimes seen their government’s make use of the levers of government to boost their electoral chances; for example Margaret Thatcher’s government stoked the economy in the Lawson boom in 1987 which just happened to be an election year.[1] Governments without elections can engage in long term planning and make unpopular decisions without fear of the consequences. Thus for example Saudi Arabia is willing to pump less oil (and so get less money in the short term at least) in order to create stability in the oil market by having enough excess capacity to prevent price spikes. [1] Congdon, Tim, Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism, 2007, p.73 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7DiRU-TROV0C
Forces the ruler to find another way to placate the people

Not having any elections – or only elections for a powerless advisory parliament – may actually have a benefit in putting responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the rulers. Only a country that is comparatively well governed, or successful, can manage without a democratic safety valve.  It is notable that the remaining absolute monarchies or those where the King rules as well as reigns are mostly very wealthy petro states. Several of the remaining communist regimes, China and Vietnam, rely on rapid economic growth to cement their legitimacy combined with meritocracy in their selection of leaders. In both cases there is an incentive for good governance by those in power as they are in for the long term. The leaders know they are not going to be elected out of office so have the motivation to reduce corruption and create long term growth through investment in infrastructure because this will benefit them in the future.[1] [1] Feldman, Noah, ‘Feldman examines corruption and political legitimacy in China’, Harvard Law School, 11 March 2013, http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2013/03/11_feldman-corruption-political-legitimacy-china.html
Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election

The acceptance by most autocrats that there need to be elections shows the idea that legitimacy derives from the people is generally accepted.  Meaning that these states are already part way to having a genuine democracy. Having regular elections, even if the outcome is preordained, means that the electorate becomes used to voting and the idea of voting to make their voice heard. In such circumstances eventually they are going to want their vote to really count. If there is a creeping process of reform eventually this will result in free and fair elections. Having any kind of elections means that there are people who are recognised as an opposition. This means that there is a viable alternative to the ruling party which can be turned to in a crisis, or can take on the leadership role when the regime is finally toppled. For example in Philippines the opposition was able to create a united opposition party in 1984 and coalesce around Corazon Aquino in the snap elections of 1985.[1] This meant that Aquino was in a position to swiftly set up a government following the people power revolution and flight of Marcos.[2] [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992, http://www.princeton.edu/~bsimpson/Hist%20725%20Summer%202006/Philippines-the%20fall%20of%20Marcos.pdf Pp.4, 10 [2] Reaves, Joseph A., ‘Marcos Flees, Aquino Rules’, Chicago Tribune, 26 February 1986, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-02-26/news/8601140956_1_marcos-final-destination-marcos-flight-ferdinand-e-marcos
Elections of any sort force rulers to meet their people

Elections almost anywhere in the world mean politicians getting out and campaigning. Regardless of the legitimacy of the final election the leadership of the country will be going out and meeting voters. In many of these events individuals won’t be able to express their views but there are also likely to be protests and meetings where individuals can get their views across. This provides an opportunity for the leader to stay in touch with the people – often a problem with dictators who have been in power too long.   Dictators will want to, and often believe that they are likely to win even without resort to fraud, as Marcos did in 1985.[1] They are then are much more likely to consider the views of the electorate to still be relevant if there are elections than if there are not. Thus for example Mugabe in the most recent elections made a bid for, and won, the youth vote by promising a direct stake in the economy,[2] so responding to their desire for jobs.[3] [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992, http://www.princeton.edu/~bsimpson/Hist%20725%20Summer%202006/Philippines-the%20fall%20of%20Marcos.pdf p. 10 [2] Agyemang, Roy, ‘Why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/robert-mugabe-zimbabwe-victory-good [3] AFP, ‘Youth, rural voters may hold key to Zimbabwe election’, Fox News, 27 July 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/27/youth-rural-voters-may-hold-key-to-zimbabwe-election/
Even a sham election demonstrates what the people want

In an election the people show what their policy preferences will be. Even if the government is engaging in vote rigging or voter intimidation they will still know how the people voted or wanted to vote (if they stuffed the ballot they will know how many extra votes they added) so will have some guidance as to the policies that the people wish implemented. If there are multiple different parties competing in the elections then it will be possible to tell which party platforms are the most popular and so which to take ideas from. If there are elections then there are opposition parties and independent MPs who are given much more space than they would be without elections. Being MPs gives the opposition some status and gives them a controlled setting in which to criticise the government. This provides the opposition with the chance to channel the voice of the people and encourage change from the governing party.
Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.

For an autocracy the election for the top job needs to be predetermined, but the other elections do not. This means that elections for the legislature can still be competitive. The seats do have some influence, provide patronage, and have status attached so there are plenty of people who want to contest them. In the Arab world before the Arab spring there was a less than 25% incumbency rate for legislatures.[1] Having elections that determine control in local areas or allow opposition some control in parliament is far preferable to the alternative where the government appoints everyone. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in Burma have for example gained entry into Parliament and have despite being a minority had an impact. This has particularly been the case internationally. They have helped liberalise the new Foreign Investment Law and have encouraged more liberalised freedom of the press and association.[2] [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.7. http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_074099.pdf [2] Turnell, Sean, ‘Myanmar has made a good start to economic reform’, East Asia Forum, 27 March 2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/27/myanmar-has-made-a-good-start-to-economic-reform/