That the CIA should rig elections in post Arab-Spring countries to ensure the moderates win

For the past year and a half the Middle East has been in flames, people have been dying for a right that the western world is taking for granted, to self-determination and to a representative government. I believe they should have those rights. I have three arguments. First I will show how the right to a legitimate government matters more than any utilitarian calculus. Then I will show that even if it didn’t, rigging these elections would make for bad governments in these countries, and lastly that it will almost certainly backfire and erode US foreign policy efforts. So first, the importance of a legitimate government. Democracy is not a practical means to an end, it is a right for the citizens of every country to their own self-determination. Firstly, because of the fundamental importance that has to the people of these countries. Let’s not forget, they have been dying for this right. For months people protested against bullets and tanks in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria. The ability to have a democratic and accountable government is something more important to the people of this country than their own lives. That is why they should have that right even if it could be show to be harmful to them in the long run. They have shown that, to them, harm to themselves is worth it for the ability to be self-determining. Secondly, the states claim to have power over its people in setting policy like policing and boarder control is predicated on a legitimate claim to represent the interests of those people, as those people see them. Even if the US doesn’t agree with where Egypt should go with its future, it’s Egypt’s right to decide it and a government that acts without that legitimate mandate is immoral for doing so. Third, it cannot be an argument that we simply don’t trust the people of Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain to elect a leader who will continue the path to democracy. Aside from the fact that they have that right, if anyone can’t be trusted to determine that, it is the US. For decades the United States has been propping up the very extremist dictators that the Arab world is now trying to free itself from. If the US claims to be the defender of their rights then it has already failed in that charge. Democratic rights matter, they matter more than a utilitarian calculus of preserving lives, because people are willing to die for it. But even if this debate were to be on purely utilitarian principles, the case for my opponent would still fall. Next, let’s talk about how this effects the governments that get elected through this process. Obviously I can’t criticise the precise party from the precise country that my opponent intends to support until he names them. However, the process of elections provides a means of accountability which is extremely necessary, especially in new democracies, for the government to act in the best interest of its people. Firstly, because these governments will be implicitly beholden to the US intelligence community. Their decisions won’t have anything to do with what the people of Egypt or Tunisia want because those people didn’t do anything to get them into power. The decisions of that party in how they govern will never be “what is in the interests of the people” because the people were not the ones who put them there. Instead, the party will ask themselves “what is in the interests of the US intelligence community? ” This means that their policy agenda cannot act in the most effective manner for their own countries freedom and prosperity, because that is no longer their primary concern if they want to be re-elected. Secondly, the interests of the country and of the US intelligence community are divergent, and the party will always have to prioritize the interests of the US. This means that any treaty the US wants, the US invariably will get from these countries, regardless of whether it is in fact in the best interest of the people. This means in acting to secure the best use of these countries oil wealth, or in debating social issues and determining rights to abortion or the death penalty, these countries are no longer able to lobby for their own interests, because the governments think that if they don’t do what the US says then the US will just replace them. Lastly, this creates a huge moral hazard in these countries for the party put into power. This is because the government is no longer accountable to the people. Aside from the issues which the US denominates as important, or which they believe are important for the US, these governments no longer have any incentive to do what their people want. This is especially important when the US has clearly said to these parties “democratic rights are not important. ” Without accountability to the people the governments are likely to act in the most expedient manner for themselves, rather than in their people’s interests. Third argument, this will backfire on the US. First, we have to acknowledge that it will be very difficult to get away with this. Until my opponent describes the mechanism of how he believes the US should do this I obviously cant attack that mechanism. However, no matter which way it is done it will be very difficult to disguise the fact that the winner of the election is not the candidate with the highest popularity. Exit polls will show a noticeably different result from the electoral vote, and there will likely be a large amount of scrutiny and suspicion because of that. Secondly, there is already a huge amount of suspicion in post Arab spring countries over the process of replacing their old governments. In Egypt Mubarak was replaced by a military council who is now overseeing the elections. Egypt continues to see protests against the unfair treatment that they perceive from the military council. The suspicion created by the unexpected results will be disastrous for a country that will have a hard enough time trusting the government that they are going to get as it is. We are likely to see more public disorder which further damages the lives and welfare of people in those countries. Third, anti-western sentiments are still rife in many of the post-Arab spring countries. This is why the US cannot be seen to have or be credibly suspected of interfering with the internal policies of these new democracies. The Egyptian people are much less likely to be willing to support American foreign policy goals in the Middle East (RE: Israel) if they believe the US is taking from them the democratic rights they fought and died for. Fourth, the backlash continues outside of the post Arab spring countries. The US has moral standing the world because of its clear ideal that democracy and self-determination matter. That is eroded when it becomes clear that these things don’t matter, that only a commercial utilitarian calculus about the best thing for America’s foreign policy interests matter. This is especially important in the context of the revolution in Syria. Why would Syrians fight for their freedom against their cruel dictator if they believe that the freedom they gain will be illusory? Especially when America has historically supported dictators to further its forging policy objectives in the past, anything that smells like a colonialist narrative will be disastrous for the furtherance of democracy around the world. Democracy matters. People are dying for it and with good reason. In this debate I stand for the ability of a people to determine their own fate, to exorcise their right to meaningful political expression and legitimate government, not a continuation of the colonial narrative that has condemned these countries to tyranny in the past, and will condemn it to bad governments in the future.