This House Would Impose Democracy

Rebuttal"Democracy is a system for the people. But to fix problems within the country, those problems must be known by the public and the solution as wellThen, surely, the answer to this problem lies with education. Depriving these people of democracy is not the answer. You aregeneralising the people in oppressed countries by saying that they are all intellectually inadequate, but by giving them the information they need, they can then go on to make an informed decision. " Being intellectually inadequate is not my main point. It is that they are not politically informed. From tax systems, to the way the government works, these people do not know, and being intellectually inadequate is part of the problem. But as I showed with the shocking statistics about the ignorance of people in the U.K politically, it is not all of the problem. That is the lack of political knowledge.Stating that you can just teach them simply is fallacious. Politics is about the way the country runs. The immigration system, the tax system to the ins and out of benefits and trade. The politics of a country is a complicated issue. This is an issue with democracy itself, the way the country runs is in the end run by experts and the country runs like a republic. The people themselves in any country are too uninformed, but we are not simply going to hold politcal classes for those who are over 18, and make it mandatory. You could try putting politcs as a key part of the curriculum, but these things are too complicated unless taught seriously and extensively.Unless you make this mandatory, then people will not choose politics for the simply reason that interest is low as people had been distant from politics for years. Without information, people will get knowledge, they will get information as it will be thrust upon them, but as seen in the aforementioned statistics, their knowledge will be skewed and it will take a very active government and a while for interest to be gained, for people to want to get involved and for politics to be something which people in general are interested in. This length of time is enough for the country to fail. There must be a correlation as 90 percent of democracies imposed in Africa/Asia fail within 60 years[1].The popular mentality leads is to believe a variety of things, which can affect politics drastically. In the U.K. for example[1], 58% of people do not think that crime is falling, when since 2006/7 crime has fallen by 19%. Once again, we can only hope to remove this ignorance through education. You assume that the democracy imposed will be purely democratic, but I did not state this once. These people will have more political autonomy, but that doesn't mean they we will be left to go in blind.Go back to my previous paragraph. You are not going to teach people on how many muslims there are, or how much crime is falling by. There cannot possibly be classes on the amount of immigration or foreign aid. These things are learnt through individuals, and as I said, if people do not then democracy is not perfect. It is a serious issue with democracy no matter the country. For people to be informed, they have to have an interest, which they have no reason to because they did not instigate their democracy and they had no reason to do before. Or classes will have to be compulsory and in great quantity, which in an LEDC where countries are more oppressive, is not something of hig priority.An authoritarian regime does not require any political knowledge or interest.Indeed it doesn't, but that does not make it better. In an authoritarian regime the people have no power. Zero. If something happens which they don't like, they can't do anything about it. In democracy they are given freedom of choice about those who govern them, which can be based of knowledge if they are given the right treatment. My opponent thinks that we are going to enter the country, set up a democratic system overnight, then leave them with whatever shell of a government remains. This is not the case. We will aid them for as long as they need. I was simply stating why there is no need for interest. This is a straw-man.Next was your map, which was a red herring to be perfectly honest. This map does not show the success of democracies. Only whether they have democracies which are full. Also, I did not state that low intelligence fails. Low intelligence is a factor in the lack of political intellect, which is the issue. This means the government is more free to be corrupt, and abide more by his biddings. Your map to be honest only helped my point. Look at the "full democracy" box. The colour is a vivid green. No country on your map has that colour, other than Mauritius. The more successful ones only "flawed democracies". Africa, a continent where many democracis have been imposed, where intellect and political informity is not as high, according to your map, does not have countries with a full successful democracy.A new democracy suffers from a lack of interest and a lack of informity. This I have shown above cannot be fixed easily, thus a new democracy will fail, and as I have also shown above, it does. In short, your whole contention is false. I have proved that most democracies fail, given an issue with democracy and why a new democracy cannot function and negated all of Con's points. I have the upper hand as I have gone over my BOP, and I urge the floor to side with me, thank you.Sources:[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...