The US should not recognize the results of the latest Nicarguan election.

Thanks innomen. I'll start with some important background info and then offer my arguments. I'll rebut my opponent's points in the next round, if necessary, although my responses should be clear from my case. == Realism vs. Idealism == There are two competing theories of international relations (which governs how nations ought to view the world): Realism and Idealism. Idealism argues, among other things, that promoting democracy will solve the all worlds' woes. Idealism claims, under democratic peace theory, that democracy will make the world a safer place. However, democratic peace theory has been widely debunked. For example, a study by Edward Mansfield found that partially democratized countries are far more likely to go to war with their neighbors than are autocracies. [1] My opponent constantly refers to Idealism when he implores us to "uphold democratic values." In contrast, Realism acknowledges that sometimes you must deal with dictators to accomplish your agenda in international politics. Realism, as the name suggests, is much more "realistic" than Idealism. In this debate, I urge a Realist approach to international politics, as opposed to an Idealist one. == Prevalence of illiberal democracies == Fareed Zakaria coined the term "illiberal democracy" to refer to governments that are democracies in name only; these governments have the trappings of a democracy (elections, a parliament, a supreme court), but they fail to actually uphold liberal values, like free speech and fair trials. Illiberal democracies are extremely common in today's world. According to the Democracy Index of 2010, 31 nations are illiberal democracies. [2] Among the newest democracies (founded in the past 30 years, during the "Third Wave of Democratization") most are illiberal democracies or have reverted to authoritarianism. As Paul Collier, Development expert at Oxford University, explains, stolen elections are the norm among illiberal democracies; the incumbent usually resorts to a voter fraud strategy. [3] So voter fraud in illiberal democracies should not surprise us. Collier explains that dictators merely use elections to maintain the faï¿½ade of democratic institutions. Even prior to the most recent election, Nicaragua was ranked as an illiberal democracy. [4] Why should it surprise us then that Daniel Ortega behaved the way we'd expect a president to behave in an illiberal democracy? Are we any more surprised or outraged when the Saudi monarchy refuses to yield the throne in the face of Arab Spring protests? == Marginalizing ourselves from international politics == If we refuse to recognize the leaders of undemocratic countries, we can no longer deal with those countries diplomatically. Diplomacy requires meeting with a country's recognized leader. If we give into Idealism and refuse to recognize undemocratic leaders, we could no longer deal with any of the 56 authoritarian regimes, including China and every single Middle Eastern country, save Israel. In addition, if we refuse to recognize the leaders elected during "stolen" elections, we would have been forced to refuse to recognize Hamid Karzai as the leader of Afghanistan [4], Vladimir Putin as the leader of Russia ("Observers said the poll and run-up campaign were the least fair in the entire post-Soviet period"), [5] the current government of Poland as legitimate [6], Calderon of Mexico as the legitimate leader, [14] the current government of Pakistan as legitimate, [7] and most others. This would massively hamper our ability to accomplish our international agenda if we were forced to cut ourselves off from the entire world. For example, President Saleh of Yemen is a KEY ally in our War on Terror. Any potential alternative to Saleh would be horrible and would force us to withdraw our CIA and drone presence from Yemen. However, Saleh's elections are anything but "fair." So unless my opponent would have us withdraw from the world stage, we must adopt a Realist approach to international relations, rather than an Idealist one. Political realities often demand recognizing "unfairly" elected leaders. == Futility == Ortega doesn't care whether we recognize the election results or not: he's not going to step down. If we refuse to recognize him, all we do is two things: lose all our influence over him and hurts ourselves by losing our good relations with his regime. CBS reports that: "[Ortega] has maintained ties to the U.S. . . . according to the World Bank . . . Ortega's macroeconomic policies [are] ‘broadly favorable.'" CBS continues that if the U.S. cuts off our ties to Ortega, this would only force him closer to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. If we want to alter his regime and nudge Ortega towards liberalizing his country, we are better served by MAINTAINING ties and using conditional aid than in cutting off all ties. If we cut off ties, we lose any influence over Ortega that we had. == Quick response to "Constitutionally illegitimate candidate" == The Supreme Court let Ortega run. [16] It was probably a dumb decision, but so was Bush v. Gore. == Coup == A study by the University of Kentucky entitled "Supporter of Stability or Agent of Agitation" specifically examined whether U.S. support or distaste for a Latin American regime increased the chance of a coup occurring against that regime (yes, the study is literally about the U.S. and Latin America). [9] The study found that internal actors considering a coup are more likely to pursue their coup if the U.S. sends a hostile signal against the regime (such as cutting off aid or removing diplomatic recognition): "The empirical test showed that hostile signals significantly increase the likelihood of a coup attempt." In fact, a coup is 179% more likely if the U.S. sends a hostile signal. The following study by Andrew Miller found that there is no such thing as a "good coup." [10] Coups always hurt the people of the country and rarely result in a democracy. Edward Mansfield found that when a stable government breaks down, the chance of civil war increases by 200%. [11] Coups rarely end "nicely." They usually end in massive bloodshed. In addition, a study by Paul Collier finds that once a country has a civil war, the chance of having another (if the autocrat loses) becomes 70%. [12] In a post-conflict country, different factions end up fighting and often refuse to yield. Nicaragua is better off stable than unstable. == Authoritarian Transition == Samuel Huntington coined the term authoritarian transition. He observed that democracies were not good at enduring temporary hardship for long-term gain. As a result, most of astounding economic growth in the previous three decades, such as in the Asian Tiger economies, has come through autocracies, which can make the tough decisions necessary to achieve long-term growth. Countries like South Korea achieved massive growth under autocracy, then once they were ready, transitioned to democracy. Huntington concludes that this may be the only successful model. Poor democracies do not fair well. As Paul Collier explains of the Third World, "the increased democracy has quite probably retarded the reform of economic policies and governance. It has gone far enough to lose whatever might be the advantages of autocracy, while not yet having gone far enough to gain the benefits of democracy." Without a middle class, people are not educated enough to successfully employ democratic institutions on their behalf. In addition, a study by Adam Pwezorski found that poor democracies almost always fail; he found that for countries under per capita income of $9300, the chance of democracy failing EVERY YEAR is 12%, with the average democracy lasting only 8 years. [13] Nicaragua's per capita income is $1100. It is NOT ready for democracy. In addition, a study by Victor Polterovich of Moscow University finds that in illiberal democracies, which he defines as democracies with weak governance and rule of law, democratization actually undermines economic growth. [15] As expected of an autocratic transition, Ortega's economic policies have been broadly favorable, according to the already cited World Bank study. He has helped his people with "microcredit, farm aid, subsidies, [and] bonuses for civil servants." [8] Lastly, autocrats CAN rule by consent of the governed. Ortega is extremely popular in Nicaragua. While he may not have won more than 50% of the vote without fraud, legitimate pre-election polls had him leading his opponent by 18 percentage points. [8] It seems like we are undermining the will of the people if we refuse to recognize him as the legitimate leader of Nicaragua. == Sources == [1] Mansfield, Edward D., Snyder, Jack L. Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War, International Organization - Volume 56, Number 2, Spring 2002, pp. 297-337 [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Wars, Guns, and Votes [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://www.cbsnews.com... [9] http://www.uky.edu... [10] http://www.africa.ufl.edu... [11] http://www.humansecuritygateway.com... [12] Paul Collier, 2009, Wars, Guns, and Votes, page 80 [13] Larry Diamond, 2008, The Spirit of Democracy: the Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World, page 27 [14] http://www.americasquarterly.org... [15] https://kb.osu.edu... [16] http://www.globalpost.com...