MOTION #78: THIS HOUSE WOULD IMPOSE DEMOCRACY
This topic asks
debaters to question the value of democracy as opposed to other systems, and
whether democracy is so important that it ought to be required. Although
hypothetically the motion could be interpreted as a government imposing
democracy on its own country, recent history points to what is probably a more
reasonable interpretation: whether governments ought to impose democracy on
other nations. The use of the verb "impose" suggests that such
nations would be at least somewhat opposed to this action; Affirmatives might
be able to argue that the resolution implies that the imposition is successful,
but absent a strong justification for this interpretation, it would not be
difficult for a Negative to claim abuse.
What exactly
constitutes democracy is quite controversial. At the most basic level, a
democratic system is one in which the government is formed by the people.
Generally this is taken to imply universal suffrage. However, a government
could also be formed by the people through consensus, and still qualify as a
democratic government. Furthermore, most democratic theorists argue that there
is more to democracy than the electoral system: democracy is predicated on the
notion that every individual has worth, and thus in order for a government to
be democratic it must protect its people's rights. Consequently, perhaps the
first thing a debater ought to do is determine exactly what type of democracy
they advocate imposing.
In addition, it is
very important to understand the context in which this motion has been raised.
As of 2010, according to the Democracy Index, an index compiled by the
Economist Intelligence Unit, 26 nations are classified as full democracies, 53
as flawed democracies, and 32 as hybrid regimes, leaving 56 authoritarian regimes.
Many of the countries which are not full democracies are countries in which
other nations have intervened and attempted to establish democracy: for
example, Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, some of the full democracies
were in fact subject to forced democratization, such as Japan and Germany post
World War II. Examining why some impositions have been more successful than
others is important to constructing cases on either side of this debate. It is
also worth comparing them to the current youth movements in the Middle East,
where pushes for democracy are occurring within nations such as Egypt and
Libya.
Debaters should be sure to consider both theoretical arguments -- e.g.
about the possible conflict with national sovereignty posed by imposition or
the possibly contradictory notion of "imposed democracy" -- as well
as more practical ones -- e.g. about whether imposing democracy is the most
effective way to obtain it, or whether impositions generally violate rights. On
the Affirmative side, debaters must defend both the value of democracy, and
either the efficacy of imposing it, or absent solvency claims, the moral
justification for attempting to do so. They should be sure to clarify -- at
least among themselves-- whether they are arguing that nations have an
obligation to impose democracy, and/or simply whether they would benefit from
doing so (either in the sense of self-gain, or achieving some humanitarian
objective). On the Negative side, it is possible to argue both that democracy
should not be imposed, and/or that imposing it (either altogether, or in the
way advocated by the Affirmative) leads to negative consequences. However,
debaters should ensure they have a clear stance as to whether they concede that
democracy is the most preferable state, or whether they are willing to defend
other forms of government as having some legitimacy.
Pros
|
Cons
|
Interventions can be successful given the right
conditions. Certain factors may
increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation
with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected
lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be
more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not
advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if
there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and
there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the
worth of imposing democracy.
|
Interventions are far more likely to fail than to
succeed. As explained further in Opposition Argument, empirically and
logically imposed democracy is likely to fail. Governments can try and
minimize the risk of failure, but it is inherent to the nature of imposition
that a government is being instated against the country's will. It is
consequently very unlikely to generate support and remain stable.
|
Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals
unable to fight for democracy themselves. If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed
it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing
democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements
lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very
difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive
regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus
NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of
the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if
it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been
destroyed without outside intervention.
|
First, it is not clear whether such a position is
topical. Second, it is better to support protesters in this case, rather than
taking the lead.
To begin with, it is not clear that assisting
individuals in the fight for democracy is a valid interpretation of the
phrase "imposing democracy": if the majority of people want it,
perhaps it is not really an imposition. But second and more importantly, if
internal movements exist, foreign nations should seek to strengthen and
support those movements rather than impose a government. Democratic
governments gain legitimacy through popular support: both in origin and in
survival. A government chosen and filled by the citizenry is far more
legitimate, and thus more likely to command respect and maintain order, than
one enforced by a foreign regime.
|
Promoting democracy promotes peace. By most accounts, there has not been a war between two
democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace
(1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's
opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as
the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus
by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a
peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in
democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human
rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human
rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own
country.
|
First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful
than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel
terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to
war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as
democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies.
Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not
mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the
democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression
externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of
democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements.
Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions,
galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations
pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public "letter to the
American people," he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India,
Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks.
|
Because democracy is the best form of government, it is
not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who
do not have it. Democratic regimes
are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide
that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the
value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to
form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To
deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual.
Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows
individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other
human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our
humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it,
just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were
being abused.
|
There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily
the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our
obligation to impose it.
First, just because we believe that political
self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is
logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places
great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few
years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a
government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is
objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or
should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene
in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of
complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.
|
Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally,
every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given
that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful,
populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes
effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have
imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic
government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a
possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us
from effecting real positive change.
|
Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed. Democratic government is not only government for the
people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government
is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it
lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to
force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that.
This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a
great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and
Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States),
thus de- legitimizing the government even further.
|
To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the
motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose
democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of
non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that
unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities.
This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security
Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves
democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight
for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?
|
Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous. The motion suggests that a particular government is
imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage
democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund
which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human
rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process",
is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and
more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a
given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country
respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with
suspicion.
|
Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly
support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their
interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.
There are two reasons this might be true. First,
individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of
repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy,
but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory
helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems
that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the
early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and
desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create
support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often
does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan,
less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be
imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.
|
The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from
within or else democratic government will not be sustainable. Unless the people within a country want democracy, they
will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do
not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most
people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are
legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want
such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law,
pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed,
foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes
because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign
support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of
imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the
likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future.
|
It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or
protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact
is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every
individual's right to political self determination (as explained in
Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they
do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.
|
The imposition of democracy violates national
sovereignty. Countries have a right to
choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to
violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best.
Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a
Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage
nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations
are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme
situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their
government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression
towards another state.
|
Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict.
Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak.
Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives
and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most
important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the
eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where
backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or
Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a
government that people actually trusted.
|
Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict. Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a
different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize
the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these
things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either
between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival
factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection.
Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous
gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's
infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal
devastation' and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the
experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane,
'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the
attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.
|
0 Comments