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

Thanks for the debate innomen. == Realism vs. Idealism == My opponent seems to confuse my point here: I'm arguing that the United States' approach to international politics should be Realist, not Idealist. If we refuse to recognize someone as the "legitimate" leader of a country, then we can no longer deal with that person or that country. Examples abound in history: the KMT in "China," Manuel Noriego in Panama (1989), Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast (recently), Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah's election in Lebanon, the recent election in Georgia [1], etc. Idealism gains us nothing, except a moral victory, but has bad Realist implications. My opponent suggests under the "marginalization" point that we can "just" refuse to recognize the election. He suggests we have done so before. This is untrue. On the world stage, refusing to recognize election results EQUATES TO removing diplomatic recognition of that leader. Otherwise, such a gesture would hold no actual force. This is not Obama saying in a press release "this election was fraudulent," this is the US, as an entire country, refusing to recognize the election results. Why did we sanction Karzai's stolen election? Because we still had to deal with him, diplomatically. Why did we remain silent on Putin's "most unfair election since the fall of the Soviet Union"? Because we still had to deal with him, diplomatically. I don't even understand innomen's point: if you "don't recognize the election results," as the resolution states, then that means you REFUSE to acknowledge that person as the leader of the country and refuse to deal with his government, until he steps down. Otherwise, you are tacitly "recognizing" the results by validating him as the leader. == Pre-election polls == My opponent never responds to the CBS evidence, which says that Ortega is popular among the peasants (because of micro-loans, farm subsidies, and civil servant bonuses). Legitimate pre-election polls (which are anonymous random samples) showed Ortega leading his closest opponent by 18 percentage points. The anonymity of the poll answers my opponent's objection that people are afraid to speak out. If Ortega won anyway, refusing to recognize him actually violates Idealist principles and subverts the will of the people of Nicaragua. I should win the debate right here. There *are* protests right now by supporters of the opposition party, but this is to be expected. This proves nothing about Ortega's popularity. == Nicaragua is too poor for democracy == Remember the key Adam Przeworski study that democracies under a per capita income of $9300 always fail after an average of 8 years. Every year, they have a 12% chance of failing, which adds up fast. Nicaragua has a per capita income of $1100. It is dirt poor. Innomen cites Costa Rica to prove that Nicaragua can model itself on Costa Rica. However, Costa Rica has a per capita income of $11,000 [2], which is well above the threshold. Przeworski ALSO found that above the $9300 threshold, a democracy, once established, NEVER failed. Innomen also cites Honduras and Colombia as good democracies. Honduras is rated by the Democracy Index as an illiberal democracy and had a coup in 2009 – hardly a good model. Colombia's per capita income is also above the $9300 threshold, but it is hardly a model of perfect governance. [3] Some assert that it is a violent failed state. [5] Paul Collier explained why poor democracies fail: they lose the efficiency of autocracies, without having enough institutions and education to protect rights. Inevitably, after the people become frustrated with the slow pace of progress and growth, these countries collapse back into autocracy. == Marginalizing ourselves from international politics == Firstly, innomen seems to misinterpret this point. I'm not arguing that NICARAGUA will be marginalized, but that the U.S. will be marginalized from international politics if we have to keep taking a stand against every contested election. I agree with innomen here that Ortega is close to Chavez, as are many other Latin American presidents. However, the CBS article says that Ortega also maintains close ties to the U.S. and economic policies that are favorable to us. We don't want to lose that. The rest of Nicaragua doesn't like us very much, given our history with the country. [4] Innomen's source #7 NEVER says that Nicaraguans want the U.S. to get involved in their politics; if anything, the protesters would be like those in Syria, who told us to stay out of it. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain. If we refuse to recognize the results, that will not change Ortega's behavior one iota. However, Development experts like Larry Diamond (of Stanford) and Paul Collier have noted that we have made progress towards democratic reform by maintaining relations and using conditional aid. Conditional aid stipulates that a President gets more aid money if and only if he implements some agreed-upon democratic reforms. Choosing to "not recognize" Ortega would eliminate this possible option. == "Constitutionally illegitimate" == Lol, innomen answered this exactly as I hoped he would: the Sandinista's loaded the court, and their members voted for Ortega. The same thing happened with George W. Bush. His father loaded the Court, and those same justices voted for Dubya in Bush v. Gore, circumventing the electoral process and declaring the loser of the popular vote the winner. Using my opponent's reasoning, other countries should have responded by revoking diplomatic recognition of the U.S. and refusing to deal diplomatically with Bush. However, this is unrealistic. == Coup == Innomen may have never advocated for a coup, but the University of Kentucky study says that when the U.S. sends a signal that we don't approve of a Latin American regime, this makes a coup 187% more likely. The reason the U.S. is so key is because we have intervened militarily (Grenada 1983, Panama 1989, and Haiti 1994) and with sanctions (Guatemala, Paraguay, Ecuador) against coups in the past. If we show that we wouldn't oppose a coup, this makes coups much more likely. The study is AMAZINGLY specific and uses empirical data over the last 40 years. Once the country has a bloody coup, it just leads into a never-ending cycle of violence, as Collier has demonstrated (70% chance of more coups). How does innomen think that the opposition party would get rid of Ortega? If he won't step down, a coup is the only option, and the Sandinistas won't go quietly. But if we're concerned about the people of Nicaragua, a coup is the last thing they need. Collier points out that civil wars generally wipe out 30% of a country's wealth. Nicaragua can't follow the Tunisian model, either, for a bloodless revolution: Tunisia had a much more benign leader and was much wealthier and better educated. == Authoritarian Transition == Remember, the World Bank did a study and found Ortega's policies "broadly favorable." His micro-credit, farm subsidies, and civil servant pay raises have all helped lift his people out of poverty. His country would be even worse off without him. Their economy would have to achieve China's astounding growth rate, and it would still take them 50 years to achieve Costa Rica's average per capita (per person) income. They can't do this amid political upheaval and with the cronyism and corruption that always accompanies democratization in poor, weak governance countries like Nicaragua. Innomen merely asserts, without a source, that Nicaragua has grown "in spite" of Ortega. Prefer the World Bank study. Also, remember the Moscow University study that in an illiberal democracy, like Nicaragua, democratization undermines economic growth. This study is based on empirical data from all the countries in the world. Reasons to vote Con: 1) Ortega actually DID win, according to legitimate pre-election polls. He is ruling by consent of the governed, albeit in an autocratic fashion. 2) Forced and rapid democratization would undermine economic growth (Moscow Univ. study). 3) Ortega has "broadly favorable" economic policies, according to the World Bank. He is a positive force within his country. Nicaragua is in dire poverty. It needs economic growth more than it needs democracy. 4) A hostile signal against Ortega would result in a bloody coup. Nicaragua, as a poor country, needs political stability. Investors don't invest during times of political upheaval. 5) Refusing to recognize autocrats or fraudulent election results is an unrealistic approach to international politics, which ultimately undermines our mission not only in the world, but also in Nicaragua itself. == Sources == [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://www.csa.com...