THBT democracy is not the answer for every country.

Reply Speaker
Outline points of contention that the debate has centred around
Evaluate course of debate
Declare reasoning of our victory
Good morning all, I am the final speaker, wrapping up the Oppositions case as to why
democracy is the answer for every country. Lu Hao, Zuo Min and Matthew have brought up
points about political, social and economic benefits of a democratic state, and I will be
proving to you as to why these are so important.
There were a few points of contention brought up today. One major conflict has centred on
the definition of democracy. I would like to reiterate that a democratic state must be one
that embraces other elements in line with the ideal of majority rule, some of which include
citizen participation, regular free and fair elections and a multi-party system. The
proposition side defined it as
Next, the proposition side also said that democracies often fall prey to populist policies that
may be popular with voters but make no economic sense. But this can be easily refuted,
since this kind of problem only applies to those in the developing countries, or those
countries which are in their early stages of growth. Most of the time, the electorate will be
educated and worthy, so that the people will vote for them. And since the people have
entrusted the matters into the ruling partys hands by voting them in, they have the right to
enforce their own policies which would help the country in the long run.
You might say that not everyone has perfect information and voters may be deceived by
those running for the presidential for or for seats in the house or senate. But this is the
voters right to be in the know. Also, decisions may be slow to be made, take example for
the recent debt ceiling crisis in America. But the fact is that people have entrusted their
matters into the leaders hands. It does not guarantee social justice (Weak). Short term
policies are made to be re-elected in, but if the electorate was true about helping the
country, they would have planned long-term.
Democracy ensures peace, particularly when theres a change of hands at leadership. It is
the only type of government that allows for this peaceful transition between the preceding
ruler and the successor. Unlike other forms of government, in which people may have to
resort to violent means to overthrow the ruler, Democracy doesnt. Well yes, you might say
that democratic states do have violence, in the example of America, but this is due to the
governments poor political decisions made by the ruler, and it has nothing to do with
democracy.
Also, a democratic state must have multiple parties, and this allows for check-and-balance.
Both opposition and the current government have a chance to win the elections then, and
this ensures that the system is not corrupt and becomes a dictatorship. Therefore, multiple
parties must stand in democracies, and this is obviously the best system to go for since it
brings about the greatest benefit to the people.
Democracy ensures social stability as well, and the two interesting aspects are that
democracies never suffer famines or cause genocides of their own people in history. The
Soviet Union, China, Somalia, Cambodia and Sudan, in recent times have all experienced
famines, and they are not democratic at all. Also, governments are accountable for their
people in democracies. Because they want to be voted back into power, they have the right
to ensure that the people do not starve.
Also, another important aspect of democracies is the existence of a free press. It exits so as
to reveal government policies and the truth behind their activities. Inadequate information
has contributed to several famines. During the Great Chinese Famine of 1958-61 that killed
30 million people, the Chinese authorities overestimated the country's grain reserves by 100
million metric tons. Needless to say, this was during the Mao era, under the communist rule.
Without the existence of a free press and the free flow of information, it was easy to see
how nobody could have spotted the fatal overestimation of grain reserves caused by the
Chinese authorities.
These two factors only exist when leaders face periodic elections and when the press is free
to report information that might embarrass the government. Without famines, without the
worry of a food crisis, without the social unrest caused by famines, it clear that democracy
brings about social stability and is the right way to govern all countries.
The proposition might say that democracies that are poor suffer famines as well. But poor
democracies as well as rich ones have not had famines. India, Botswana, and Zimbabwe,
considered poor countries, have avoided famines, even when they have suffered large crop
shortfalls. In fact, the evidence suggests that democracies can avoid famines in the face of
large crop failures, whereas non-democracies plunge into famine after smaller shortfalls.
Next, the citizens of liberal democracies are very safe, and less likely to suffer violent death
in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments unlike totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes, e.g. the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist
China, Imperial Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
The governments power is reduced, which prevents it from committing mass murder of the
people. The opposition serves as check-and-balance. Violent revolutions can be avoided, and
thus a peaceful transition of power can stay. You might say that Hitler was democratically
elected, but it was a flawed Germany system. Hindenburg had the majority of the votes
(53%) compared to 37% for Hitler. Thus, he should not have taken power in the first place.
Even so, he turned Germanys system to become authoritarian, making Jews suffer in the
dark period of the Holocaust.
Therefore, would you rather, a system without democracy, unstable and shaky, or would
you rather a stable government, wherein people can live at rest, a Democracy? Thus, our
stand should hold that democracy is the definite answer for every country. Thank you.