This House Would Impose Democracy!

FRAMEWORK:Firstly, we see a debate-wide acceptance of the following terms: imposed democracies are foreign imposed democracies, and have no way or intention in which any man would have any say in the implementation of the system of governance. Moreover, we see more concessions upon the points that the Iraqi democratic state was a failure, and Afghanistan's democracy was also another failure.Secondly, I asserted, and the opposition has agreed with me, that when a democrat asserts the "people" they talk about the majority, not the people in question here. O1. Democratic WarI shall refute the facts of R1 then: this view is wholly fallacious. To say that democratic nations do not wage wars on other democratic nations is to ignore the fundamental fact that asserts that there is a certain dualism between the government and the people. The government (the system of governance) makes no difference at all to the wars that the nation wages. The people do. This can be seen in the case of India and Pakistan: these countries are two functioning representative democracies that go to war with each other repeatedly. Ultimately, "your country is never wrong" is a fact that holds true for many people in a democratic society. Accordingly, a democratic country has a higher sense of patriotism than non-democratic countries. Gallup polls show that 1/3rd of all Americans could be described as "highly" patriotic. Australia, another well functioning democracy, seconds America as the most patriotic nation in the world. Patriotism leads to ignorance of a country's crimes in another country; it leads to imperialism that cannot be seen is wrong.Now upon this point of democratic war, we see a view that is cherry-picked. The opposition's assertions that a democratic society do not go on major colonial campaigns are wholly based upon this idealization of democracy, and is wholly a false assertion. The largest empire to have ever existed in the world was a democracy. In 1688, the country of the United Kingdom became a representative constitutional monarchy. Soon, there was virtually no region in the world that was left untouched by the United Kingdom. Whilst the Mongolian Empire controlled only 22% of the world, Britain controlled 23% of the world at once, and literally sustained it's rule for an extended period of time. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Empire map.gif" />This is the extent of the British Empire; it was spread over all the continents, and there was no country by the 21st century that was not effected by British imperialism. And these include democratic countries: the War of 1812 was a war of democracies. Now the opponent wants me to name a democratic government that has been able to match up with the Greek Empire. I shall do this in a more clear manner. http://users.erols.com...; />Behold, the Second Colonial Empire. In 1938, it controlled at least 5% of the world's population. During the Vienna Conference, the Second French Colonial Empire gained the most land. During the French Revolutionary Wars, it could also be said that two democracies (England and France) went to war with each other. But perhaps this is not enough; perhaps the opposition is not convinced by these two examples of democratic imperialism. Our next example: http://upload.wikimedia.org...; width="489" height="247" />Yep, it was the United States of America that took Phillipines on the verge of it's independence. It was the USA that annexed Hawaii, that brought Russia, and that invaded Iraq. Now, I do not make the argument that dictatorships are more peaceful than democracy. However, I argue here that democracies and dictatorships make no revelence to the wars that they will get involved in.O2. On Iraq and AfghanistanThe opposition's concession here is to the point that the new imposed democratic Iraq did not do well, but there were perhaps no alternative. This is ignoratio elenchi to the main point; we are not talking about "dictatorships" but "democracies" Nevertheless, I shall respond to the main arguments posed by the opposition. Now, firstly, was democracy really the best plan for Iraq? For such a divided nation would have been immediately torn into sectarian conflict between the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Yazidis. What was better? I argue that the secularization of the Ba'ath Party, and close cooperation with the Iraqi Ba'ath would have done much better than the expulsion and disorganization of the Ba'ath Party. In terms of governance, I argue that a transitional government led by a secular Ba'ath Party, supported by the United States and other foreign troops, to lead to referendums and an eventual transition to a liberal democracy, would be much more effective than imposing democracy when institutions were not built before hand. This counter-plan is much more feasible than a democratic state for the following reason. (1) A secular state ensures state-wide equality for everyone, (2) a secular state ensures that Iraq stays Iraq, and (3) the Ba'ath Party always enjoyed minimal support (at least) in the area. This type of transition was highly effective in the case of Fiji, where a military government soon gave way to a democracy. This junta-type government was also highly effective in the case of India and Philipines. In the case of India, the idea of independence was led by the eventual transition from British rule to a democracy of the people. In Philipines, the American "dictatorship" (benevolent it was) soon led to a well-functioning democracy until 1965. We have, in this history of the world, never seen a successful imposed government. So much for the democratic part of the imposition of a democratic state.The opposition ignores the fact that (1) during the rule of the Taliban, these warlords were suppressed, and (2) this warlord dilemma happened after the power vacuum immediately after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union attempted to impose a government in Afghanistan. From these two main facts, it can be said that a monocratic rule of a party, supported and regulated by a foreign force, would eventually led a transitional government which would create institutions for the creation of a stable democracy. Such occupations do not take a decade, but years, even centuries, to succeed. The case of Afghanistan was not an outlier; democracies face a deficit in the decision making process, which makes it ultimately difficult for a single party to come out with some type of solution to a perceived problem. This collectivism is good after stability has been procured, but not so effective in the early stages of the democratic transition. Such was the case in Afghanistan. Due to the lack of central authority, partly because of corruption, but partly because the Afghan Peace Party and the Party of Liberation (a moderate Sunni party) had huge ideological contrasts in the National Assembly, the Taliban soon enjoyed huge support with the Afghan lower class, especially the Aryan Pashtuns. The exclusions of the Pashtun also gave the Taliban more power support, and the Pashtuns have historically been for the Taliban.Now, what I propose here is some type of an moderate Islamic republic in a process to ever reach democracy. Strong central authority, supported by a presence of both foreign and domestic troops, were to guide the country to democracy, and not back to corruption. This transitional council would do much better than a democracy, as it would incorporate Afghanistans, not just western-supporting Afghans. We see two main problems in an imposed democracy, accompanied by one huge one: (1) the division of the nation due to lack of identity. In Iraq, the Sunnis, Shias, Yazidis, and Kurds who all previously lived peace by peace in the Ba'ath government (before Hussein) soon had huge disagreeements and contrasts in post-Hussein Iraq. In Afghanistan, the exclusion of Pashtuns from power ultimately led to huge divisions in parliament, as the Pashtuns were the majority. The (2) second problem is corruption: Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the most corrupt nations on the face of this planet. Imposed democracies have this sense of a lack of legitimacy that allows government officials to corrupt the nation without any fear of punishment. There is no unity, so to say. The last problem is the most serious: the (3) lack of central authority in an imposed democracy, for the people simply reject the legitimacy of such governments. O3. France and AmericaFirstly, France supported America. The opposition talks as if France imposed democracy onto the American people. This wasn't the case:Between 1778 and 1782 the French provided supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and, most importantly, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington’s forces in Virginia. French assistance was crucial in securing the British surrender at Yorktown in 1781.The final assertion that some people will not defy injustice for long is very fallacious, and wholly built upon presumption. Any defiance of injustice must come from within, not without. The most successful democracies have been built this way: the corrupt nature of the reign of King Charles I led to the first and one of the most successful democracies in the world, and it was not imposed, but self-brought. In France, it was the unjust nature of the monarchy that brought democracy. In the US, it was the need to regain liberties after losing them in the face of injustice. No democracy has ever been built upon a principle of imposition; Iraq and Afghanistan are the best examples of imposed democracies failing. There is a difference between supporting and imposing; Russia is supporting Syria in it's fight, but Russia is not imposing Assad upon the Syrian people. Supporting does not imply intervention, the main principle of coercion.With these conclusions, I consider the resolution to be negated. Vote CON.Citations in Comments