query: 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 future1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan."  2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

positive: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy 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.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace  Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens. [1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country. [2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government. [3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior.  [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012.   [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,   [3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010,

negative: bate media and good government international africa house believes limited Authoritarian leadership  President Kagame though considered a visionary leader has made Rwanda a country based on one man’s ideas. He has silenced critics, opposition and any counter arguments that may not support his opinions through tough rules imposed against the media and free speech. This sparked misunderstandings within the government forcing 4 four high rank officials in exile, one, an ex-intelligence chief was recently murdered in South Africa[1].  Rwanda is essentially a hard-line, one-party, secretive police state with a façade of democracy[2]. To avoid future conflict and government break down Kagame needs to convene a genuine, inclusive, unconditional and comprehensive national dialogue with the aim of preparing and strengthening the country’s future progress.  The fact that most Rwandans still want him to run for re-election after his two terms in 2017 shows how much he has controlled people to believe he is the only potential leader in a country of more than 11 million citizens. If Rwanda is to have a stable future democracy it needs to be recognised that the opposition are patriots too and should be entitled to freedom of speech and press to give them an opportunity to share their views on how the country can be improved. For democracy in Rwanda to progress the country needs to accept the idea of freedom of speech and a ‘loyal opposition’.[3]  [1] Aljazeera Africa news, ‘Rwandan ex-spy chief found dead in S Africa’, Aljazeera.com, 2 January 2014  [2] Kenzer, Stephen, ‘Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future’, thegurdian.com, 27 January 2011  [3] Fisher, Julie, ‘Emerging Voices: Julie Fisher on Democratization NGOs and Loyal Opposition’, CFR, 13 March 2013

negative: The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits:  With term limits, a legislator will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of legislators in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. A study into term limits in Brazil found that "mayors with re-election incentives are signi?cantly less corrupt than mayors without re-election incentives. In municipalities where mayors are in their ?rst term, the share of stolen resources is, on average, 27 percent lower than in municipalities with second-term mayors."(Ferraz, 2010) Furthermore, lame duck politicians can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former parliamentarians, cabinet ministers, senators, etc. find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement (Wynne, 2004). Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behavior, as politicians look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people. 1 Ferraz, Claudio and Finan, Frederico, (2010). "Electoral Accountability and Corruption: Evidence from the Audits of Local Governments" Berkeley, 2 Wynne, Michael. 2004. "Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy". University of Wolongong.

negative: It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others  It is a fatal conceit to consider democracies somehow above the influence of using their surveillance technology to curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. The biggest customers of Western surveillance technology companies are wealthy democracies. The United Kingdom, for example, has one of the most-watched populations in the world, with a saturation of CCTV cameras far in excess of any dictatorship. [1] The PATRIOT Act in America, also, has given the federal government enormous scope for domestic spying. These powers are no less simply because the government is composed in part of elected officials. The security establishment is appointed, not elected, and their servicemen are promoted from within. It is base hypocrisy to pretend that the security systems are inherently more just when employed in democratic states than in undemocratic ones. They are used for the same purpose, to ensure that the state is protected and the status quo maintained. Democracies have no moral basis on which to base this policy.  [1] BBC News. “Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’”. 2 November 2006,

negative: The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.  With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement. [1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.  [1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available:

negative: Turkey has elections, it is a democracy  The most fundamental part of democracy is the ability of the people to influence their government. In almost all democracies this is done through elections to parliament. This is the case in Turkey. There was general acceptance that the elections that the AKP won were free elections. The US state department said the elections were carried out “in a free and fair manner” [1] while the OSCE election observers said “The parliamentary elections demonstrated a broad commitment to hold democratic elections” although there was the odd complaint. [2] Turnout in elections is very high compared to many democracies and is actually rising; it was 79% in 2002, the election that brought AKP to power, increasing to 88% in 2011. [3] If turnout is any indicator (and clearly it is or else mature democracies such as the UK would not be worried about their own falling turnout) the AKP would appear to be strengthening democracy in the eyes of voters.  [1] Toner, Mark, ‘US Congratulates Turkey on Elections’, Embassy of the United States Turkey, 13 June 2011,   [2] Election Assessment Mission, ‘Republic of Turkey Parliamentary Elections 12 June 2011’, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 31 October 2011,  , p.1  [3] ‘Voter turnout data for Turkey’, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 5 October 2011,

negative: This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government  A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies serves ultimately as a statement of disapproval. It shows that the undemocratic regimes cannot be trusted with the ability to spy on their people. This signal has several effects. An example of this international shaming affecting is the international bans on the use of landmines. Various states created a framework, the Ottawa Convention, [1] in which their condemnation pressured nearly every other state, including authoritarian regimes, to follow suit. [2] Domestically it serves to bolster people’s faith in the system of rights they value highly and enshrine in law. They can point to this ban as an example of their government’s desire to make a better world and not to increase repression for the sake of power or profit. In the undemocratic states themselves, the regime leaders will be faced with a significant public relations blow as they come under criticism. This serves to embolden and empower holders of dissenting opinions and to spark pro-democratic discourse. In the international community it makes an emphatic value judgement on the merit of certain systems of government, namely the superiority of democracy and government accountability to the people, principles most non-democracies still pay some form of lip-service to. Overall, this policy boosts the credibility of democracy, while undermining the influence of undemocratic states.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House (as the USA) would sign the Ottawa convention banning landmines’,   [2] Wexler, L. “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best Responses, And Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban Landmine and the landmine Ban Treaty”. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2003.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

negative: Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.  The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries.  What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-  .  1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011  2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011

negative: computers phones internet society youth digital freedoms privacy house would join Facebook is good for democracy  Social networks aid our society on multiple levels, one of them being the democratic process. This happens both in autocracies, where the democratic process is basically nonexistent and in western liberal democracies where Facebook acts as a megaphone for the will of the population.  Firstly, when talking about oppressive regimes, Facebook allows the population to organize themselves in massive protests which can, in time, overthrow the government. This is of particular importance as the population cannot organize protests "offline" in the real world, because government forces would quickly find them and stop the protests before they even started. These people need a safe house, where government intervention is minimized, so that they can spread the news and organize the protests. The online environment is the best options. We have seen this happening in the Arab Spring(1), Brazil (2), Turkey(3) as well as for protests in democracies as in Wisconsin(4)  For western liberal democracies too Facebook plays a very important role in aiding the democratic process. Even in a democracy the government often engages in unpopular policies. Unfortunately, as we are talking about countries with tens of millions of people, citizens often feel they can’t make a difference. Luckily, here's where Facebook comes in. It connects all the people who share the same disapproval of government actions, removing the feeling that you can do nothing as there is no one backing you. Millions can come together to voice their opinions. Therefore there is more likely to be dissent. Moreover, the internet allowed individuals to start massive campaigns of online petition gathering, which they will later use as an irrefutable argument to the government showing the desire for change. There are a lot of sites, one of the biggest being Avaaz.org which facilitates this process, which use Facebook as a medium through which the petition is shared and so grows.  (1) Sonya Angelica Diehn “Social media use evolving in Egypt”, DW , 04.07.2013   (2) Caroline Stauffer “Social media spreads and splinters Brazil protests”, Reuters ,June 22, 2013   (3) “Activists in Turkey use social media to organize, evade crackdown As protests continue across Turkey against the government”   (4)Wikipedia

negative: Turkey does not have the freedoms associated with democracy  The rule of law, limits on the power of the state, and the provision of personal rights are key to any country being considered to be a liberal democracy but these are being undermined in Turkey. This is most noticeable when it comes to freedom of the press. Turkey’s press freedoms have been in decline. It is a dismal 154th on the press freedom index [1] and most notable is that it is the country with the most imprisoned journalists with at least 76 imprisoned, mostly without having been convicted and as a result of their work. [2] The lack of freedom of the press and how cowed the press is has been shown in the recent rioting; CNN covered the protests live, at the same time its Turkish language subsidiary CNN Turk was broadcasting a cooking show. [3]  [1] ‘21013 World Press Freedom Index: Dashed Hopes After Spring’, Reporters Without Borders, 2013,   [2] Greenslade, Roy, ‘Turkish press freedom crisis’, guardian.co.uk, 23 October 2012,   [3] Cook, Steven A., and Koplow, Michael, ‘How Democratic Is Turkey?’, Foreign Policy, 3 June 2013,

negative: In the Libyan case the dictator remains (as of 20th April 2011) but cannot sell oil even if he retakes the refineries. The rebels cannot sell oil either (legally) even though they control most of the infrastructure. The sanctions imposed against Gaddafi apply to the whole of the country. [1] Therefore the desire for oil pushes for further support of the rebels in this case as the sanction regime is only likely to be deconstructed following a rebel victory. Should Gaddafi remain in power the west may have to cut itself off from Libyan oil for years to come.  Obviously the above case represents a regime in flux. Once a regime is toppled then anything can happen. There is then no reason why outside actors should want to encourage another dictatorship rather than a democracy. A dictatorship may bring stability faster but a democracy is much more stable in the long run. Countries ideas of their strategic interests can be very divergent. An example is the Suez crisis. Prime Minister Eden considered it “an obvious truth that safety of transit through the canal…[is] a matter of survival [however] world opinion seemed to be that Nasser was within his rights in nationalising the Canal Company.” [2] As Nasser promised “freedom of navigation would not be affected by nationalisation” reducing the matter in the view of the US Secretary of Defence to “a ripple”. [3] So while Britain was still willing to fight for control over the Suez canal the US condemned that very action forcing a withdrawal.  [1] Libya oil stuck in legal limbo as UN panel shunned, Reuters Africa, 20th April 2011,  accessed 19/5/11  [2] Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle: The Memoirs (Cambridge, 1960), p.533.  [3] Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace 1956-1961 (New York, N.Y., 1965), pp.39, 41-3.

negative: US support for democracy has been at best hugely inconsistent, and at worst criminally apathetic. During the Cold War, the US overthrew various democratic governments (for example Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s) and supported dictatorial regimes. This has continued into the post-Cold War era, as the US support for the coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002 demonstrated. While the US professes support for democratic forces in the Arab world, it has also continued to give vital assistance to the strategically-important dictatorships of the Gulf, primarily Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been responsible for grave human rights abuses in response to recent peaceful protests[14].The US also continues to support states such as Israel which violate international law, and also routinely flouts international law itself—as seen by wars such as Iraq, the treatment of terrorist suspects and breaches of the Geneva convention [15], the undermining of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the violation of countries’ sovereignty with ‘drone’ attacks. Clinical realpolitik, and not the pursuit of democracy and human rights, determines the use of US power.  [14] Goodman, Amy (2011), ‘Barack Obama must speak out on Bahrain bloodshed’, The Guardian: Comment is Free, April 2011.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.The US is not a hegemon at all, but an imperialist power-an empire.  [15] Chatham House, ‘Extraordinary Rendition: A summary of the Chatham House International Law Discussion’.  , Accessed 15th May 2011.

negative: The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments  Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.  [1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.   [2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011.   [3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’

negative: Factionalism is too strong  Since the 1970s, Arab state governments have become especially corrupt and oppressive, and have failed to provide essential social services on a consistent basis. Over the past forty years, people in the region have had to become increasingly reliant on informal networks and institutions in order to ensure personal and familial security and livlihood. This has degraded hopes of a relationship of trust between the state and people, causing people to committ themselves to differing factions, gangs, tribes, and parties in order to sustain themselves. It is apparent that the resulting factionalism may stand as a barrier to democracy, as parties hold fast to ideological committments and interest groups instead of political compromise and power-sharing.  This is especially rampant in post-conflict states, as is the case in Iraq. The current Iraqi government took 249 days to form. [1] The conditions for creating a stable government in Iraq seem to be based more on appeasing all the relevant groups than creating a working government. Lebanon, perhaps the most democratic Arab country also has its problems, the national unity government collapsed this month after 11 ministers from Hezbollah and its allies resigned. [2] , [3] The third example of an emerging democracy is of course Palestine. President Mahmoud Abbas, elected in 2005, continues in office despite his term having expired in January 2009. He extended his term, which opponents say breached the Palestinian Basic Law. [4] In 2007 clashes broke out between Fatah and Hamas, the two most prominent political parties, as a result of over a year of attempted political sabotage after Hamas won the election and Fatah refused to form a coalition in order to govern. These examples show that in environments where there are high levels of violence and conflict, factionalism takes hold over democratic governance. When law and order become difficult to establish under normal means, these regimes tend to seek security through autocracy and de-facto martial law, as has been happening under Maliki in Iraq or under Hamas and Fatah in the Occupied Territories.  Libya may face this same challenge after its July 2012 election, as tensions remain high after the country was divided between Qaddafi loyalists and the patchwork rebel network. Egypt also faces the risk of the military seizing power from the civilian government, as SCAF has already given itself additional powers and intends to create a shadow council that would allow it to veto parliamentary decisions.  [1] Ranj Alaaldin, The Iraqi government’s patchwork alliance may struggle to survive, guardian.co.uk, 24th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [2] Hezbollah and allies topple Lebanese unity government, BBC News 12th January 2011,  accessed 19/05/11  [3] Lebanon is the most democratic Arab country, ranks 86th Globally, iloubnan.info, 25th December 2010,  accessed 19/05/11  [4] Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas challenges Abbas term extension, The Jerusalem Post, 29th September 2008,  Accessed 19/05/11

negative: This ban will alienate non-democracies from discourse and stifle reform efforts  When a state is declared illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the international community, its natural reaction is one of upset and anger. A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies would be seen as a brutal slap in the face to many regimes that consider themselves, and are often considered by their people, to be the legitimate government of their country. The ban will result in further tension between non-democracies and democracies, breaking down communication channels. Democracies are best able to effect change in regimes when they seek to engage them constructively, to galvanize them to make gradual connections to the development of civil society and to loosen restrictions on freedoms, such as reducing domestic spying. The ban makes it clear that the ultimate aim of democracies is to effectively overthrow the existing governments of non-democracies in favour of systems more like their own. The outcome of this conclusion is far less willingness on the part of these regimes to discuss reform, and makes it more likely that they will demonize pro-democracy activists within their borders as agents of foreign powers seeking to subvert and conquer them. This particular narrative has been used to great effect by many regimes throughout history, including North Korea and Zimbabwe, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for example denounced a travel and arms sales ban as attempting to “undermine the inclusive government”. [1] By treating non-democracies as responsible actors democracies do much more in effectively furthering their own aims.  [1] BBC News, “Zimbabwean minister denounces EU”, 14 September 2009,

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy 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.

negative: Violation of Sovereignty  Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’. [1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter. [2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference. [3]  Censorship by governments can be there for the good of society; for example South Korea censors information about North Korea and forces internet users to use id cards and real names when posting on forums and blogs making them easy to trace. [4] This does not however mean that democracies should be helping South Koreans to bypass this system, South Korea as a nation has decided to place some restrictions on the use of the internet and that should be respected by other nations.  It is simply unfair and unequal to apply one set of standards to one set of nations and different standards to another. If democracies have the right to decide how their internet should operate so should non democracies. The fundamental principle of non-interference should apply to all states.  [1] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.333  [2] Charter of the United Nations, ‘Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles’, 1945.  [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.202  [4] The Economist, ‘Game over: A liberal, free-market democracy has some curious rules and regulations’, 14 April 2011.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Advancing national interests  A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]  [1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998,   [2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2,  p.318  [3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3,  p.515

negative: Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.  The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.

negative: The idea that CSO’s involvement in political life equals good governance is essentially an oversimplification. In extremely corrupt semi-democracies, there is no guarantee that societal actors will not be co-opted within the system and become corrupted themselves [1] . This would result in a legitimation of the non-democratic powers in the public eye, rather than a promotion of better practices and good governance. We could say that a wider role for civil society is desirable only for those countries that are well ahead in the path of democratisation. The risk is, otherwise, to trigger a counterproductive reaction.  [1] Mogalakwe and Sebudubudu (2006) ‘Trends in state-civil society relations in Botswana’, Journal of African Elections, 5:2, pp. 207-224

negative: The US has used its power to promote democracy, human rights and international law  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of liberal democracy over communism have provided the US with more impetus to actively promote democracy, human rights and international norms and law. Under President Clinton, the Leahy Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1998 and the Religious Persecution Act of the same year demonstrated this change in priorities. Democracy promotion also became a core element of George W. Bush’s National Security Strategy of 2002, and has been a key motivating factor in President Obama’s response to the Arab Spring, where the US has supported democratic forces against dictators such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Colonel Gaddafi of Libya. The US under Obama has also provided leadership in the UN Human Rights Council[12], and holds governments to account through The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour (DRL), which also forges and maintains global partnerships to promote human rights and democracy.[13]  [12] Brookings, ‘U.S. Leadership at the U.N. Human Rights Council: A Foreign Policy at Brookings Event’, February 2010.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.  [13] U.S. Department of State, ‘Human Rights’.  , Accessed 14th May 2011.

negative: The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers  An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid 'regulation,' it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty.  The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a 'head tax' or 'poll tax' (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws.  Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behaviour, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional. (11) In many ways, the 'mandate' could be considered a tax, but a tax which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax”, a tax on transactions or events, or a “penalty tax”, a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan. Taxing uninsured people helps to pay for the costs of the new regulations. The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment.(17)  Health insurance mandates incentivize behaviour like many other laws. At one time, the Supreme Court restricted the ability of Congress to use its taxing power to regulate people's activities. In the early part of the 20th Century, the Court drew a distinction between taxes designed to raise revenue, which were permissible, and taxes designed to regulate behaviour, which might not be permissible. However, this distinction was jettisoned by 1937, and the taxing power is now recognized as a broad congressional power.(12) Moreover, Congress has the power to make laws which promote the general welfare. As Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued in November of 2009: “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility." The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”(12)  The power to promote the general welfare becomes crucial when it is considered that it is impossible to create a national health insurance system and help the current 30 million uninsured is to mandate everyone to buy health insurance. You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007. If citizens within a state are not obliged to participate in a healthcare scheme (whether privately of publicly organised), then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. Such behaviour will alter the composition of the risk pool, such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of "adverse selection". Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known- somewhat histrionically- as an “insurance death spiral”.  States that wish to pursue the goal of creating an affordable, universally available system of healthcare, must ensure that the majority of their citizens buy into such a scheme.(13) Because there is a compelling benefit to the "general welfare" in instituting a national welfare program, the federal government may rely on Constitutional authority to impose a health insurance mandate. If the States were left to do this, with some instituting a mandate and some not, many would be left uninsured and the risk pool would not be adequately spread. The difference in benefits to the country clearly justifies federal action to create this individual mandate under the Constitution.

negative: Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society  Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.  [1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.  [2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1  [3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012

negative: There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.  Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.  There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result [1] . The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.  [1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

negative: Protecting sovereignty  The international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years [i] .  Reducing government aid to developing democracies prevents these states from allocating aid in accordance with their citizens’ wishes. In the world created by the resolution, aid distribution will be carried out by foreign charities that may have objectives and normative motives at odds with the aspirations of a government and its citizens. There is a risk that governments will abandon heterodox or non-liberal approaches to democracy in an effort to obtain tools and support from NGOs that they would otherwise be unable to afford. State actors will be placed in a position where any action they take will entail a significant sacrifice of political authority. A state that capitulates readily to the demands of a foreign NGO will not be seen as a robust representative of the national political will; it will be considered weak. Similarly, a state that refuses to accepting funding or the donations of new infrastructure materials will be forced to deal with the consequences of prolonged fiscal and economic deprivation within its borders.  NGOs are, as a general rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Like any other private organisation, they are not bound by the transparency and freedom of information regimes that western governments have submitted to. In many states, especially India, NGOs are subject to less regulation and less stringent accounting requirements than for-profit businesses. The American or European origins of the wealthiest NGOs, along with the large numbers of western professionals that they employee make auditing and judicial supervision of their activities difficult for poorer states. It can be complicated and expensive to challenge international conflicts in private law regimes; it can be equally complicated for new governments to renege on agreements that their predecessors may have concluded with NGOs.  Popular concern about the safety of western citizens working for NGOs in foreign states can lead to unbearable diplomatic pressure being applied to governments that attempt to discipline organisations that exceed the authority they have been granted or adopt a lax attitude to national laws or social taboos. An attempt by a French charity to evacuate one hundred and three children from Chad to Europe was subject to wide spread criticism [ii] when it emerged that the charity had produced fake visas for the children and had attempt to conceal the operation from Chadian authorities. The charity had previously published press material that contained open admissions that it was acting without the support of any national government or international organisation. Nonetheless, the French government attempted to influence the outcome of the criminal investigation that was mounted against the Charity’s workers [iii] .  The resolution would remove control over development policy from emergent representative institutions created at great financial and political cost. The resources and political capital normally bound up in ODA would then be transferred to NGOs that may be less accountable than national governments, that may sow conflict within divided communities, and may act unilaterally and without respect for the laws of aid receiving states. The message that the resolution would communicate is directly contradictory to the ethos of responsible, accountable and democratic intervention in marginalised or failing states that has underlain the last twenty years of development policy.  [i] “Deal to end Kenyan crisis agreed.” BBC News Online. 12 April 2008.   [ii] “Profile: Zoe’s Ark.” BBC News Online. 29 October 2007.   [iii] “’Families weren’t duped’, Zoe’s Ark duo tell court.” Sydney Morning Herald. 24 December 2007.

negative: government voting house would have no elections rather sham elections Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election  The acceptance by most autocrats that there need to be elections shows the idea that legitimacy derives from the people is generally accepted. Meaning that these states are already part way to having a genuine democracy. Having regular elections, even if the outcome is preordained, means that the electorate becomes used to voting and the idea of voting to make their voice heard. In such circumstances eventually they are going to want their vote to really count. If there is a creeping process of reform eventually this will result in free and fair elections.  Having any kind of elections means that there are people who are recognised as an opposition. This means that there is a viable alternative to the ruling party which can be turned to in a crisis, or can take on the leadership role when the regime is finally toppled. For example in Philippines the opposition was able to create a united opposition party in 1984 and coalesce around Corazon Aquino in the snap elections of 1985. [1] This meant that Aquino was in a position to swiftly set up a government following the people power revolution and flight of Marcos. [2]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  Pp.4, 10  [2] Reaves, Joseph A., ‘Marcos Flees, Aquino Rules’, Chicago Tribune, 26 February 1986,

negative: Islamic parties have led governments before  The economic, social, and political history of the region show there are many obstacles to establishing stable democracies in the Middle East. Many in the West fear that Islam is among these barriers, with claims that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahda in Tunisia will turn their countries into theocracies like Iran. However, there are majority-Muslim states with Islamist parties that have succeeded in creating stable democracies, including Turkey and Indonesia. Both countries are good case studies that disprove the widespread notion that Islam is incompatible with democracy.  Turkey is most often cited as a good example for the Arab spring to follow. The election of the AKP has shown that an Islamic party can also uphold democracy, so providing a good example for the powerful Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. Elections are free and fair and the press is relatively free. The Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced down coup threats from the military, again something that may well be necessary given the large role the military has had in the previous regimes. Turkey’s economy is growing briskly and Turkey is following a foreign policy of reaching out to everybody and is touting itself as a model for Arab countries to follow. [1]  In Indonesia in 1998 there was a revolution that ousted President Suharto who had like Mubarak been in power for thirty years. This revolution progressed in a very similar way to the ongoing revolution in Egypt – in both countries the protesters were middle class and young, the president went relatively peacefully and the military helped during the transition. [2] Indonesia is now the largest Muslim democracy in the world and while there are islamist parties in parliament their support is now below 30%. [3] Indonesia can therefore provide a road map for moving from an interim government with the military in control to a fully functioning and successful democracy.  [1] A Muslim Democracy in Action, The Economist, 17th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [2] Banyan, Remember 1998 The Indonesian Example, The Economist, 7th February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11  [3] Thomas Carothers, Egypt and Indonesia, The New Republic, 2nd February 2011,  accessed 20/05/11

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels It is in the national interest for democracies to support those seeking to oust dictators  Democracies should support moderate groups seeking to oust dictators because the result will hopefully be a moderate, democratic state. This would then be a reliable partner for the future that would be more willing to help engage and resolve the region's problems. But this is not all about being high minded and wanting to promote democracy in the Middle East, arms need to be provided in order to ensure future influence in Syria. We already know that there are jihadis operating in Syria so it is plain that this is a conflict that will eventually have wider implications for the west. If we want to have influence in Syria after Assad is overthrown then we need to begin helping opposition groups. It is in our interest to build up the moderate groups so as to deny support to the extremists; once this is over we would be in a much better position if we have grateful friends on the ground rather than groups who are resentful that we provided fine words but no real help. We don't want to find ourselves having to root out terrorists from the air using UAVs. [1]  [1] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Rejecting the Ban on Cluster Bombs Hurts the international image of the U.S.  The U.S. is one of the only remaining Western Liberal democracies to allow the U.S. of cluster bombs. The continued refusal of the U.S. to tow the same line as fellow liberal democracies makes it look bad internationally; especially considering that one of the main instigators behind the cluster bomb ban is the U.K. traditionally a great ally of the U.S. politically.  The U.S. is often seen as the greatest representative of Western liberal democracy as it is the most economically powerful. Part of this political clout however, comes from the continued cooperation of other Western Liberal democracies with the U.S. in failing to the sign the cluster bomb treaty despite pressure from other countries, the U.S. fails in this capacity and loses the support of the countries that it relies on to maintain its political status.  Moreover, given that the U.S. currently does not help with demining work, this further worsens relationships with other countries.6

negative: business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best Dictatorships can prevent social unrest  Dictatorships are better at controlling discipline and order within society. They generally promote a state based on hierarchical values, through strict policies based on security. This allows them to prevent financial losses due to strikes and riots, and reduce crime rates, making the country more stable.  Singapore is a de-facto one party state, in which the ruling People’s Action Party, is accused of stopping the operation of opposition parties. A former Foreign Minister of Singapore has asked “How many Singaporeans really want free speech anyway? They want orderliness, a decent living” [1] . This both makes the country more competitive because there are more productive days and more attractive to invest in as expats will want to live in countries with little crime. Moreover when it comes to attracting immigration for sectors of the economy there is none of the opposition that would occur in democracies.  Autocracy may be the only way to stabilize some countries that have never had a democratic government. It has been suggested by Mancur Olson, a leading economist, that “anarchy not only involves loss of life but also increases the incentives to steal and to defend against theft, and thereby reduces the incentive to produce [2] ”. A dictatorship may be the only way to restore order and create a political framework stable enough for trade and investment.  [1] Huff, W.G. (1994). The economic growth of Singapore: trade and development in twentieth century”. Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. p. 358  [2] Olson, M. (2000). Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books. p. 64

negative: Elections do not show the UN is moving Congo towards becoming a functioning democracy. In 2011 President Kabila has changed the election system to strengthen his own chances of re-election. The elections were hardly free and fair; the AU election monitors have every incentive to praise the elections but even they noted violence occurring. The US state department said “we believe that the management and technical execution of these elections were seriously flawed, lacked transparency and did not measure up to the democratic gains we have seen in recent African elections.” [1] The Carter Center found “multiple locations… reported impossibly high rates of 99 to 100 percent voter turnout with all, or nearly all, votes going to incumbent President Joseph Kabila.” [2] Worse the elections were marred by violence with at least 18 people killed in the run up to the vote. [3]  [1] Nuland, Victoria, ‘State Department on Results of Presidential Election in DRC’, US State Department, 14 December 2011,   [2] ‘Carter Center: DRC Presidential Election Results Lack Credibility’, The Carter Center, 10 December 2011,   [3] Callimachi, Rukmini, ‘Congo Elections 2011: Violence Kills At Least 18 People’, Huffington Post, 2 December 2011,