Impossing democracy on another country, Is it justifiable? Options

[*I Shot JFK*]

I have to particiapte in a debate with the motion 'This house believes it is justifiable to impose democracy on a country', and I would LOVE to get some other opinions and insights on the matter, so I turn to trusty Createblog.

The motion DOESN'T specifically refer to Iraq, so please don't let's turn this into a debate just about that whole debacle, although of course it's relevant.

Personally, I think the whole notion is something of a contradiction in terms

[*I Shot JFK*]

Well, if there is a war for other reasons, such as with World War 2 with defense, then is it justifiable to impose democracy afterwards on the defeated nation?

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Well, if there is a war for other reasons, such as with World War 2 with defense, then is it justifiable to impose democracy afterwards on the defeated nation?

Germany and Japan had both democratic governments; yet adapted to their respective guvernmental traditions, before WWII (Weimar Republic and Taisho Democracy). Also, more than imposing democracy, the aftermath of WWII was more of influencing countries towards capitalist or comunist stances which ultimately developed into the Cold War.

Democracy can be used in "reconstruction" processes following a war because it's a political system that tends to grant overall stability on the long run; provided the government has sufficient influence to maintain the democratic state on its feet. Wikipedia has a short mention to this phenomena, although I'd recommend Bertrand Russell's essays on liberal democracy over this:

Political stability

One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Some think that political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. On the other hand, this is more common in nondemocracies.

One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected into power. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low. When it has occurred, it is usually after a major crisis have caused many people to doubt the system or in young/poorly functioning democracies. Some possible examples include Adolf Hitler during the Great Depression and Napoleon III who become first President of the young Second French Republic and later Emperor.