Democratization

Thanks again to Con for a wonderful round! I will defend my own case, and then refute Con's. PRO's CASE C1: Democracy is Desirable Pro's example of Morsi is cherry-picking. On balance, elected leaders are more responsive to the public. Look, for instance, at Europe, North America, South Africa, etc. In these democracies, while they are not perfect, government officials want to produce legislation that benefits the electorate because they want those voters to reelect them later. It is a reciprocal relationship--in exchange for votes, voters demand benefits; in exchange for votes, elected officials provide those benefits. Let's now take a look at what Con DROPS: 1. Democracy constrains abusive rule and bad government 2. There is a positive correlation between freedom and democracy 3. Democracies are less corrupt on average C2: Nondemocratic Regimes Kill Millions Con then asserts that the push for democracy leads to violence. There are two, straightforward rebuttals to this. Firstly, oftentimes the regime is so bad, that losing some lives is better that remaining oppressed. This is certainly the case in such situations as the Rwandan genocide or Cambodia under Pol Pot. Secondly, why does pushing for democracy necessarily lead to violence? The resolution says I must "promote democratic ideals." This does not mean I have to engage in battle, or force a regime change. Merely, I must encourage people to believe in such concepts of freedom, equality, popular rule, etc. This type of process can be nonviolent. We can also look at such examples as Estonia's Singing Revolution for examples of how government's can be overthrown with virtually no deaths. Con's Vietnam example makes no sense, frankly. The purpose of the Vietnam wars was no democratization; rather, it was waged in the name of containment. Secondly, S. Vietnam was already a democracy, and the U.S. never invaded N. Vietnam, so I don't see how we were "imposing democracy" in the North. Thirdly, I am not arguing that democracy should be imposed, but rather that it should be promoted. There is a big difference. Fourthly, Con is picking isolated lines out of a fairly large card, and responding to them out of context. The context, that democracies are, in general, less violent and more just is not something Con ever seems to refute. Instead, he cherry-picks a some counter examples, and makes a tangential point about the Vietnam War. Let's take another look at points Con has DROPPED: 1. The more powerful the government, the more abusive it can be 2. Democide has killed more people than from all 20th Century wars combined 3. Democracies tend not to fight one another, promoting peace 4. The worst regimes in history were authoritarian C3: MO to Act Con asserts that War is a moral wrong. Firstly, I would argue that there are such things as just wars, but I would also underscore the difference between "promote" and "impose." I DO NOT advocate for the impostion of democracy on societies, but rather for the promotion of democratic ideals. Moreover, humanitarian crises are the WORST moral wrongs, and thus outweigh war. Let's take a look at some more points dropped by Con: 1. Human rights convey moral significance 2. Governments that violate their people's human rights lose legitimacy 3. Sovereignty is no barrier to action 4. The Int'l Community ought to respond to mass Human rights violations CON's CASE C1: Benevolent Dictators 1. Castro Consider that in Cuba: "[the] government [has been accused] of systematic human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial execution. Cuban law limits freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press. Concerns have also been expressed about the operation of due process. According to Human Rights Watch, even though Cuba, officially atheist until 1992, now 'permits greater opportunities for religious expression than it did in past years, and has allowed several religious-run humanitarian groups to operate, the government still maintains tight control on religious institutions, affiliated groups, and individual believers.' Censorship in Cuba has also been at the center of complaints." [1] Cuba may have a great healthcare system and literacy rate, but look at democracies. Their rates are comparable, and they don't have the type of state abuse so obviously present in Cuba. 2. Ataturk In fact, Ataturk was the leader of a democratic Turkey. He ruled in a multi-party system, which used free elections that "used an egalitarian electoral system...based on a general ballot." He worked hard to prevent the sort of totalitarian rule he witnessed in Germany and the USSR. [2] 3. Tito "Marshal Tito ruled Yugoslavia as a dictator, suppressing internal opposition, executing Mihajlovi and jailing Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb. He nationalized Yugoslav industry and undertook a planned economy. He didn't attempt to collectivize the small farmers, but forced them, under threat of severe penalties, to furnish large portions of their produce to the state...Having already transformed Yugoslavia into an armed camp, Tito built up a highly efficient secret police, and purged dissident elements in the Party." [3] Here again, he may have been a decent Stateman, but he was a cruel leader. "Benevolent" means "kind and generous." [4] I doubt anyone could describe Castro or Tito--both of who used brutal methods to retain their positions of power--either of these things. Maybe one could say that they were successful, but there are many successful democracies which are also benevolent. C2: Economic Benefits Con misinterprets my source. My source is not discussing political freedom, but rather economic freedom; i.e. the level of freedom given to people to pursue economic gain and to dispose of their resources as they wish. Moreover, Con's very own source states: "The average HDI of 'politically-repressed nations' is much lower compared to 'free nations'. In other words, on average, politically-repressed nations have low human development." [5] So, while these autocracies might be growing in terms of GDP, the benefits are not going to the common people. In which case, what is the point of growth? If growth isn't benefitting anyone but the elite, why bother growing at all? C3: Imperialism Con asks "when has the U.S. ever promoted democracy peacefully?" Unfortunately, this isn't the question the resolution is asking. The resolution wants to know whether the U.S. should promote (peacefully) democratic ideals, not whether it has done so in the past. Regardless of what the U.S. has done or will do, I only have to argue about what it should do. Moreover, imperialism implies that the U.S. is acting as some sort of hegemon, which isn't necessary in this case. The U.S. can encourage democracy throughout the world, without colonizing or controlling the countries in which it is promoting such ideals. Therefore, no physical imperialism need take place. Furthermore, the justification for action is that there is a Right to Protect. Ultimately, if a regime is unjust and oppressing its people, it lacks legitimacy. Therefore, outsider actors, like the U.S., are permitted to promote democratic ideals in an effort to help create a smooth transition to a just form of government. "A major purpose of states and governments is to protect and secure human rights, that is, rights that all persons have by virtue of personhood alone. Governments and others in power who seriously violate those rights undermine the one reason that justifies their political power, and thus should not be protected by international law. A corollary of this argument is that to the extent that state sovereignty is a value, it is an instrumental, not an intrinsic, value. Sovereignty serves valuable human ends, and those who grossly assault them should not be allowed to shield themselves behind the sovereignty principle. Tyranny and anarchy cause the moral collapse of sovereignty. The implication of this argument is that a government that engages in the massive and systematic violation of the human rights of its population not only forfeits its internal but also its external legitimacy." [6] C4: Failures of Democracy Promotion I would argue that promoting democracy was not the main stated goal of either Iraq or Afghanistan. In both cases, the justification was self-defense. In Iraq, there were (supposedly) NBCs and WMDs which threatened us and our allies. In Afghanistan, the Taliban-led government was shielding bin Laden and providing a haven for international terrorism. In neither case is it fair to say that the U.S. went in to promote democratic ideals. The same is true of Vietnam, as I discussed earlier. This whole contention is just another example of Con's flagrant cherry-picking. SOURCES 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - http://ehistory.osu.edu... 4 - http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5 - http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com... 6 - Abiew, Francis Kofi, 2010 [Prof. of Political Science at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Surrey, BC, Canada]: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Redefining a Role for "Kind-hearted Gunmen", Criminal Justice Ethics, 29:2, 93-109