The Instigator
RossM
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

This House Would Impose Democracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,748 times Debate No: 53451
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

RossM

Pro

I will be Pro, as I believe that democracy should be imposed on all governments that oppress their citizens. I define democracy as:

Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Impose - Demanding the commitment of...

1st round) Acceptance
2nd round) Opening Arguments
3rd + 4th round) Rebuttal's
5th round) Summation

I hope for an interesting debate...
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
RossM

Pro

I believe that the imposition of democracy should be carried out on all governments that oppress the citizens of said country. Of course, I am not saying that this should be an overnight affair, nor that we should instantly march in with guns blazing. We are simply saying that we should at leasttryto help those countries which are in dire need. This would be carried out by a joint collaboration of countries who would, at first, try to diplomatically contact the land in question. If all else failed then we would seek other courses of action.

By fighting for democracy, we would support those individuals who can't do it themselves
In a society ruled by a corrupt governing class, it is often difficult to speak out against them. If the majority of the nation want a voice, then it is morally required for each and every person to do what they can to help that cause. Internal revolts often lack the power that is needed to overthrow the governing class ( and can often lead to more killing than is necessary), so it is the job of an external force to intervene. It is clear that democracy is the preferred form of government, as seen by the graphs below.
public opinion agreeing democracy is best
support for democracy berd eastern europe central asia
muslim support for democracy
Most people agree (even in the countries which don't have democracy themselves) that a democratic system is needed for a better society. Again, it is the obligation of the west to do everything they can to help those that need it.

Democracy promotes peace

Democracy is a government of the people, for the people. It promotes the very idea of freedom and equality by allowing anyone who meets the requirements the right to vote for those that govern them. Furthermore, wars between democracies have been substantially less than those between other forms of government. Democracy is the only system of government which promotes political autonomy and human rights to the degree it does, so it would be immoral not to allow those in troubled and damaged societies the same principles.

Even if we delve into the economic benefits, we can see that their is a partial link between economic growth and democratic systems of government.

SUMMATION OF ROUND ONE:
Democracy is the only system of government which allows the members of that country the most autonomy, which is needed in our society to promote peace and equality.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and the subsequent rebuttals.

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.newnations.com...
http://www.nl.idebate.org...
http://www.convinceme.net...
CJKAllstar

Con

Firstly, I would like to state exactly where this debate lies. Pro's resolution is that democracy should be imposed on all countries that oppress their citizens. To say this has many implications. Namely:



- Democracy is better than whatever the current state of said oppressed country.
- Democracy would help the problem of oppression.
- The imposing of Democracy would be beneficial.
- Democracy will work in any oppressed country.
- Democracy is better than whatever the current state of said oppressed country.
- Democracy is the best system that can be imposed.





Pro has the BOP for all of these, being the claimant. I must negate these in order to win this debate. But I will step over my BOP for my initial arguments.

C1: Democracy Is Not Compatible

People in oppressive countries are not educated enough to vote, in short. Voting for a leader and policies is voting for the future of your country. Democracy is a system for the people. But to fix problems within the country, those problems must be known by the public and the solution as well, thus the leader who fits their ideal can be selected logically. However, this is an issue. Even in the U.K.

The popular mentality leads is to believe a variety of things, which can affect politics drastically. In the U.K. for example[1], 58% of people do not think that crime is falling, when since 2006/7 crime has fallen by 19%. The public believe that £24 our of every £100 of benefits is fraudulent, when it is £0.70. 26% of people believe foreign aid is in the top 2-3 of the country in terms of budget, when it only makes up 1.1%. People in general believe that 31% of the population are immigrants, when it is 13%. People think the country is 24% Muslim, when it is 5%. 29% of people think that Job Seekers Allowance is spent on more than pensions, when it is actually the vice-versa by over 15 times. Let us not mention that the population that 36% of people are pensioners, when the figure is 16%. We think that 15% of teenage girls are pregnant, when it is 0.6%

This level of ignorance would not farewell. Respectively to the above information, if we had a purely democratic government, we would have more money spent on crime, more red tape for benefits, demand for less foreign aid, more immigration policies, more pension red tape and more money spent on pensions and more money spent on preventing teenage pregnancies. Facts and statistics are not needed at this point, oppressed countries are not ready for democracy to be thrust upon them. An authoritarian regime does not require any political knowledge or interest. A country which has had an authoritarian regime for a long time will not be able to handle one easily, because their citizens do not have the required knowledge, and will vote for people they seem worthy, not policies and how their country is run.

[2]The average IQ of somebody in Syria is 83, 84 for Venezuela, 84 for Iran, 81 for Egypt and 85 for Yemen. In the U.K. it is 100. The scores above would be regarded as "low intelligence".

This map[3] is just to reinforce my point, which is obvious. This lack of ignorance, can lead to corruption.

preview

The similarities between this map[4] and the previous one is very high, considering they are from different sources. But there is causation. Where there is an ignorant country, there is oppurtunity for the government to be mallicious in its ways. We see the likes of Ukraine, an MEDC, with a corruption index of 144th out of 177 countries.

corruption-index-2009

Democracy is heavily reliant on the knowledge of its voters in relation to politics. Whether people want it or not is not an issue. Because they do not know whether they want it or not.



[5]. The majority of Chinese citizens believe democracy is unrealistic. In a seriously oppressed country, whoever is enthusiastic and determined can take the vote. Whereas David Cameron studied PPE at a prestigious university, Viktor Yanukovych endured a troubled childhood and multiple prison charges and was at one point an automobile engineer[6]. Democracy in itself, I re-iterate once again, is not compatible with a developing country.

Sources


[1] http://www.ipsos-mori.com...
[2] http://www.photius.com...
[3] http://reliefweb.int...
[4] http://payvand.com...
[5] http://socialistunity.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...



I know you understand, but due to exams, my arguments cannot be as comprehensive as I would have liked them to be.
Debate Round No. 2
RossM

Pro

I thank my opponent.

Democracy is a system for the people. But to fix problems within the country, those problems must be known by the public and the solution as well
Then, surely, the answer to this problem lies with education. Depriving these people of democracy is not the answer. You are generalising the people in oppressed countries by saying that they are all intellectually inadequate, but by giving them the information they need, they can then go on to make an informed decision.

The popular mentality leads is to believe a variety of things, which can affect politics drastically. In the U.K. for example[1], 58% of people do not think that crime is falling, when since 2006/7 crime has fallen by 19%.
Once again, we can only hope to remove this ignorance through education. You assume that the democracy imposed will be purely democratic, but I did not state this once. These people will have more political autonomy, but that doesn't mean they we will be left to go in blind.

An authoritarian regime does not require any political knowledge or interest.
Indeed it doesn't, but that does not make it better. In an authoritarian regime the people have no power. Zero. If something happens which they don't like, they can't do anything about it. In democracy they are given freedom of choice about those who govern them, which can be based of knowledge if they are given the right treatment. My opponent thinks that we are going to enter the country, set up a democratic system overnight, then leave them with whatever shell of a government remains. This is not the case. We will aid them for as long as they need.
preview
This map shows us some low intelligence countries. My opponent assumes that this means that democracy will fail. However, we can see from this map that democracies in Africa, which are considered "most at risk" are actually doing rather well.
African democracy map

Therefore, this shows that even "low intelligence" countries can have a working democratic system. Also, my opponent says that these people have low intelligence, but in what areas? I am sure that they would have more intellectual prowess in certain areas than we would in the west, so to deny them this freedom because of "lack of intelligence" would be fundamentally immoral.

I also apologise. I would love to make these arguments more developed but I am under the stress of revision.
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

"Democracy is a system for the people. But to fix problems within the country, those problems must be known by the public and the solution as well
Then, surely, the answer to this problem lies with education. Depriving these people of democracy is not the answer. You aregeneralising the people in oppressed countries by saying that they are all intellectually inadequate, but by giving them the information they need, they can then go on to make an informed decision. "

Being intellectually inadequate is not my main point. It is that they are not politically informed. From tax systems, to the way the government works, these people do not know, and being intellectually inadequate is part of the problem. But as I showed with the shocking statistics about the ignorance of people in the U.K politically, it is not all of the problem. That is the lack of political knowledge.


Stating that you can just teach them simply is fallacious. Politics is about the way the country runs. The immigration system, the tax system to the ins and out of benefits and trade. The politics of a country is a complicated issue. This is an issue with democracy itself, the way the country runs is in the end run by experts and the country runs like a republic. The people themselves in any country are too uninformed, but we are not simply going to hold politcal classes for those who are over 18, and make it mandatory. You could try putting politcs as a key part of the curriculum, but these things are too complicated unless taught seriously and extensively.

Unless you make this mandatory, then people will not choose politics for the simply reason that interest is low as people had been distant from politics for years. Without information, people will get knowledge, they will get information as it will be thrust upon them, but as seen in the aforementioned statistics, their knowledge will be skewed and it will take a very active government and a while for interest to be gained, for people to want to get involved and for politics to be something which people in general are interested in. This length of time is enough for the country to fail. There must be a correlation as 90 percent of democracies imposed in Africa/Asia fail within 60 years[1].

The popular mentality leads is to believe a variety of things, which can affect politics drastically. In the U.K. for example[1], 58% of people do not think that crime is falling, when since 2006/7 crime has fallen by 19%.
Once again, we can only hope to remove this ignorance through education. You assume that the democracy imposed will be purely democratic, but I did not state this once. These people will have more political autonomy, but that doesn't mean they we will be left to go in blind.

Go back to my previous paragraph. You are not going to teach people on how many muslims there are, or how much crime is falling by. There cannot possibly be classes on the amount of immigration or foreign aid. These things are learnt through individuals, and as I said, if people do not then democracy is not perfect. It is a serious issue with democracy no matter the country. For people to be informed, they have to have an interest, which they have no reason to because they did not instigate their democracy and they had no reason to do before. Or classes will have to be compulsory and in great quantity, which in an LEDC where countries are more oppressive, is not something of hig priority.



An authoritarian regime does not require any political knowledge or interest.
Indeed it doesn't, but that does not make it better. In an authoritarian regime the people have no power. Zero. If something happens which they don't like, they can't do anything about it. In democracy they are given freedom of choice about those who govern them, which can be based of knowledge if they are given the right treatment. My opponent thinks that we are going to enter the country, set up a democratic system overnight, then leave them with whatever shell of a government remains. This is not the case. We will aid them for as long as they need.

I was simply stating why there is no need for interest. This is a straw-man.


Next was your map, which was a red herring to be perfectly honest. This map does not show the success of democracies. Only whether they have democracies which are full. Also, I did not state that low intelligence fails. Low intelligence is a factor in the lack of political intellect, which is the issue. This means the government is more free to be corrupt, and abide more by his biddings. Your map to be honest only helped my point. Look at the "full democracy" box. The colour is a vivid green. No country on your map has that colour, other than Mauritius. The more successful ones only "flawed democracies". Africa, a continent where many democracis have been imposed, where intellect and political informity is not as high, according to your map, does not have countries with a full successful democracy.

A new democracy suffers from a lack of interest and a lack of informity. This I have shown above cannot be fixed easily, thus a new democracy will fail, and as I have also shown above, it does.


African democracy map

In short, your whole contention is false. I have proved that most democracies fail, given an issue with democracy and why a new democracy cannot function and negated all of Con's points. I have the upper hand as I have gone over my BOP, and I urge the floor to side with me, thank you.

Sources:

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
RossM

Pro

RossM forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

I withhold my arguments until a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
RossM

Pro

RossM forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
I have noticed that there is a pattern in which the people of countries which are less familiar with Democracy least prefer a regime change to democracy. Perhaps these people have been only used to other regimes and are maybe not educated enough to roughly understand the concept of democracy.

Good debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
RossMCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Point to Con for forfeit. It's a good thing the forfeit happened because I had no clue how I would rate this, as I found both of your arguments somewhat lacking. Not only did both sides have the occasional hastily thrown in argument (i.e. poorly supported correlation statistics or a 2 sentence anecdote), but I felt the rebuttals were ineffective. While I disagreed with Con's 'lack of knowledge' argument, Pro never offered what I felt was a legit response. Pro's only defense was to say we'd educate them, which is kind of a questionable argument as that method was never specified in his opening round. That and, Con did have a solid rebuttal to that point. Even though Con may have had more effective rebuttals, I was not convinced by his arguments any more than I was by Pro's.
Vote Placed by joepbr 3 years ago
joepbr
RossMCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I was a little confused by this debate. The resolution is about whether democracy should be imposed, while the debate was more focused in whether democracy can work in currently non democratic countries. The issue of imposition was only briefly mentioned by con on the 3rd round, but he didn't developed an argument out of it, bu rather used it to exemplify his main point, that ignorance and lack of interest in political subjects by the general population will lead a democracy to fail. This is not a very solid argument, since he uses the lack of knowledge in the UK - a recognized strong democracy - as an example of how ignorance leads democracies to fail. Pro, on the other hand also doesn't have very solid arguments, and forfeited 2 rounds, but he did succeeded in rebutting con's main points.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
RossMCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know you, but I can tell that both of you are extremely good debaters. This debate was very interesting to read. Con raised the question about whether countries are authoritarian run because not enough people understand the full generalization of these regimes due to education quality and therefore are not able to make a knowledgeable and informed decision/ opinion on their countries current regime. This question was then brought up by Pro but was then refuted by Con. This was such an interesting debate to read, but Pro forfeited. I feel that Pro should deserve some credit for his arguments as well as Con. This is why I will reward a point to Pro via 'conduct' even though both's conduct was fine.