Nigeria Should Adopt the Swiss Cantonal System of Government

My opponent, TheLDDebator, has made several statements in this debate that made me realize that his level of knowledge about the fundamentals underlying this topic is superficial. This is not by itself a bad thing; however, it is quite difficult to have a meaningful discussion with an opponent that ignores evidence and research and bases his arguments on weak opinion and analyses. In addition to some of his earlier statements (which I’ll address below) I quote one of TheLDDebator’s statements in his last post that shows limited knowledge of the fundamentals forming the basis of this debate: “Plus, how does a governmental system relate to what language the people speak. There is no correlation. It is illogical to say that, because of different languages and religions, a government system, such as Democracy cannot work. Overall, my opp. is making a correlation between Government and Language that doesn't exist.” Questions to TheLDDebator 1. Did you read and understand my first posting on this debate, thus: According to "Language Conflicts and Political Community" (http://journals.cambridge.org...), published in 1967: "In the Western world of the mid-nineteenth century, language became accepted as the most important single defining characteristic of nationality. Fichte summed up a widely influential attitude when he asserted: "Wherever a separate language is found, there is also a separate nation which has the right to manage its affairs…and to rule itself". In the twentieth century this notion has had continued prominence. The peacemakers of Versailles tended to define national boundaries on the basis of language zone" and showed an unprecedented respect for the rights of linguistic minorities." a. Do you understand the premise of the above-referenced paper? If so, what was the paper attempting to prove way back in 1967? Did the paper succeed in its hypothesis given recent political situations in the countries that were referenced in the paper and given that similar political situations don’t exist in countries with a dominant or homogeneous language? b. A short history of Belgium (http://www.historyextra.com...), which had a political crisis based on language issues as recently as 2010, might be handy. c. Do you disagree with this statement in my first post; if so, what do you disagree with? “Empirically, the most progressive nations are either linguistically-homogeneous or have a dominant language group (United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.)” The preceding should give you a clue with regards to the importance or correlation between language-homogeneity and political stability and progress (good governance). However, please feel free to list “free/progressive” democratic countries that are multi-lingual and multi-religious that rival the above in all measures of economic progress and political stability, and also list their styles of government. 2. The use of the empirical method is a well-accepted scientific technique. Of all systems of governments known to man, the best that has been successfully practiced (leading to political stability, good public welfare, freedom of expression, protection of individual and property rights, lack of internal strife and human right abuses, etc.) in a multi-lingual and multi-religious society is the Swiss model. From this evidence, the scientific method supports the notion that other multi-lingual and multi-religious societies can benefit from applying the Swiss model. TheLDDebator seems to disagree; it is, therefore, necessary for TheLDDebator to provide references to support his own position if he wishes to discount my own position which is supported by evidence. 3. “Civilized society depends on accountability mechanisms... No one denies that many individuals will meet their obligations even if no social mechanisms exert accountability: people do have a conscience and a sense of honor. But where do these virtues come from? They are not endowed at birth. We are not born saints, and few of us die saints. Without some external system of accountability, people do not cultivate the practices and habits necessary to develop internal accountability. Before learning honor we learn prudence.”(http://www.independent.org...). The preceding just about sums up some of the differences between the Swiss and Nigerians observed by TheLDDebator when he wrote “Also, Swiz. is a first world country, with (not to be bigoted) better values and better control for the lack of a better word; whereas Nigeria is a third world country, with conflict constant bubbling”. The major point here is that it is effective “accountability mechanisms” instituted by the Swiss that, over time, shaped the so-called ‘better values’ of its citizens. For its citizens these effective “accountability mechanisms” include a “functioning criminal justice system”, just to mention one. For Swiss public/elected officials effective “accountability mechanisms” include the Swiss political structure - necessary for a multilingual and multi-religious people - which empowers its citizens and ensures rule of law (http://worldjusticeproject.org...). The Swiss have a functioning society, not because they’re necessarily “better” than Nigerians or Belgians, but because they practice a system of government that guarantees accountability at all levels and ensures fairness, equity, stability and peace even among different peoples. I will give credit to the Swiss as being more advanced as to have evolved such a functioning model in the first place! My final position is that, unless TheLDDebator stops ignoring research and evidence - and disproves my thesis with references that prove that the Swiss model will not work in another multi-lingual and multi-religious society like Nigeria - I urge all readers to vote a pro ballot supporting my position. Best regards!