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

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

The doctrine of "imposing democracy on another country" entails a great risk of failure because it assumes democratic rule can be enforced on any country, under any circumstances, if sufficient force is used; be it a military imposition or via diplomatic or economic pressure.

However, democracy needs a breeding ground in order to subsist and not all countries possess it. Besides a properly oriented cultural tradition, other factors such as a moderate economic stability and having proper mechanisms to grant the security of the citiziens and the state are desired for anybody interested in building a democratic regime from scrap.

[*kryogenix*]

They should just let them vote on whether they want democracy or not.

[flaymzofice]

Well what is the precise justification for such an imposition? That the word 'impose' should even find its way into the motion implies a subconcious concession of the fact that it would be against the will of the subjected country. Surely to go against the will of any individual not in breach of any laws or fundamental rights of another, is the exact opposite of democracy?

Further, on what grounds does any state believe they are in the position to dictate the running of another country? To draw an example, if George Bush and Tony Blair honestly believe imposition of democracy was justified, they would never have lied about there being actual weapons of mass destruction at Saddam Hussein's fingertips, ready for launching.

As I said in another debate topic, if the citizens of one country are born into a way of life devoid of the concept we know as democracy, what gives us the right to police their culture and force upon them an ideal we aspire to? I'm not going in religion here, but if all men are created/born equal, then the authorities existing in our own countries were put there by the general population on a vote, however weighted. If these people do not vote on such a matter, they have not consented to being governed by their own, which ridicules the idea of an outside force coming in to do so.

[*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?

[flaymzofice]

You missed my point completely; war and democracy do not go hand in hand. At no point is there any justification for the imposition of democracy. It is, as you have said, a contradition in terms.

[*Kathleen*]

I'm sorry dearest James, but it's imposing. Sorry, it hurt my eyes. *Goes back to observing*

[fameONE]

There is no justification for interrupting another country's affairs because that country has something you want. None. Zero. Nada.

Ironic coming from me, considering what my job is. But you'd be surprised. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[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.

[*I Shot JFK*]

There is no justification for interrupting another country's affairs because that country has something you want. None. Zero. Nada.

Ironic coming from me, considering what my job is. But you'd be surprised. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

no, you're not the only one. I feel the same, but i have to argue this. it's a pain.

[flaymzofice]

^ so you want us to give you instances where the imposition of democracy would be justified?

Well how about you break down the motion for a start and choose a different set of words because 'impose' and 'democracy' are, as I've already said, a contradiction in terms.

To suggest democracy as an ideal to which another country may aspire, is a possible route of 'imposing'; ultimately, you have to leave the state with the freedom to choose. To remove this right, is to defy the whole point of democracy. If you give them a choice of democracy, and they choose not to go for it then democracy has been exercised in that simple choice. And nobody, no superpower, no army or dictator has any power to do anymore than that.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Actually, I've written my speech now, so it's all rather moot.

But that is the wording of the motion that I was given. It isn'tmy own personal choice of phrase.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Actually, I've written my speech now, so it's all rather moot.

But that is the wording of the motion that I was given. It isn'tmy own personal choice of phrase.

Show us :3 ?

[*I Shot JFK*]

Lol, it's crap, and saved at school. but monday, maybe.

I'm hoping I'll win with the delivery, to be honest.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Lol, it's crap, and saved at school. but monday, maybe.

I'm hoping I'll win with the delivery, to be honest.

No hurries, I bet it'll be interesting to read.

Good luck with the assignment!