Explanation/Format
This activity simulates a debate about the new Democracy/Soft Power Advantage. Assume that the affirmative read the
1AC below. The 1NC should respond to the advantage using material from the Democracy/Soft Power Negative file. In
total, the negative can read 4 cards and make 2 analytical arguments. For context, students should assume that the
negative has also read and extended the Terrorism DA throughout the debate.
The format of the debate is as follows:
1AC = assumed, not read
CX of 1AC = 2 minutes
1NC = read the 1NC, not timed (but see requirements above)
CX of 1NC = 2 minutes
2AC = 1 minutes 30 seconds
CX of 2AC = 2 minutes
2NC = 3 minutes 30 seconds
CX of 2NC = 2 minutes
1AR = 1 minute 30 seconds
2NR = 1 minute 30 seconds
2AR = 2 minutes
Non-participating debaters should flow the debate and will be asked to comment on it between speeches. Participating
debaters will receive appropriate prep time during these discussions.
1AC — Democracy Advantage
Global democracy is under threat—the international image of democracy is the
crucial variable
Walker 15 - Christopher Walker is Executive Director of the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for
Democratic Studies, a leading center for the analysis and discussion of the theory and practice of democratic development. (“The
Authoritarian Resurgence,” Journal of Democracy, Volume 26, Number 2, p. 21, Project Muse, April 2015) STRYKER
NED’s International Forum for Democratic
Studies is engaged in a study of what we have varyingly labeled the “world
movement against democracy” or the “authoritarian resurgence.” This project is
divided into two parts—one focusing on the countries that have been leading this
resurgence, and a second examining some of the key “soft-power” arenas in
which they have been seeking to weaken democracy. The first article generated by this project,
Andrew J. Nathan on “China’s Challenge,” appeared in our January 2015 issue. In the pages that follow, we offer readers essays on four
other major authoritarian countries—Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—
that are seeking both to gain ascendancy in their respective regions and to
undercut the rules-based institutions that have been instrumental in setting
global democratic norms. These regimes may disagree on many things, but they share the objective of obstructing the
Attentive readers of this journal will have already noticed that
advance of democracy and weakening the influence of democratic principles in the world. Lilia Shevtsova analyzes the transformation of
Russia’s kleptocratic regime into something far more belligerent and dangerous, and explains how Vladimir Putin’s new foreign policy is
raising the stakes and reshaping the landscape in Europe and Eurasia. Javier Corrales shows that Venezuela under Hugo Chávez’s successor
Maduro has seen a “turn toward greater autocracy.” Abbas Milani evaluates the underpinnings
Tehran is actively
projecting its influence throughout its neighborhood. Frederic Wehrey examines
Saudi Arabia, Iran’s great regional rival, and the negative impact of Saudi policies
on democracy. Over the past decade, these regimes have proven adept at refining their
techniques of repression and control. But all four of them have been buoyed by
high oil revenues, and it remains to be seen how they will fare if the price of oil remains at sharply lower levels over an extended
period of time. The authors of these essays explain the threat posed by these resurgent
authoritarians, but also identify their inherent political and economic weaknesses, including rampant corruption. The established
democracies have been slow to recognize the increasingly determined challenge
from today’s authoritarians, perhaps because they hope that these regimes will be undone by their flaws. But given
the resilience that the authoritarians have displayed so far, it would be rash for
the democracies to underestimate the seriousness of the dangers that they pose.
Nicolás
of the clerical authoritarian regime in Iran, and in a companion piece Alex Vatanka looks at how
Surveillance undermines the perceived viability of democracy
The Economist 13 - (“America against democracy,”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/07/secret-government 7/9/2013) STRYKER
REVELATIONS in the wake of Edward Snowden's civil disobedience continue to
roll in. The New York Times reports that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, also known as the FISA court, "has
quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter
on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape
intelligence practices for years to come..." How is the FISA court like a shadow Supreme Court? Its
interpretation of the constitution is treated by the federal government as law. The Times reports: In one of the court’s most important
the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle
known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. Of
decisions,
course, there are important differences. None of the judges of the FISA court were vetted by Congress. They were appointed by a single
unelected official: John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And then there's the fact that "
the FISA court hears
from only one side in the case—the government—and its findings are almost
never made public." A court that is supreme, in the sense of having the final say, but where arguments are only ever submitted
on behalf of the government, and whose judges are not subject to the approval of a democratic
body, sounds a lot like the sort of thing authoritarian governments set up when they make a half-hearted attempt to create the
appearance of the rule of law. According to the Times, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, "said he was troubled by
the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial
system that is a staple of the American justice system." I'm troubled, too. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal adds some meat to the story
The National Security Agency’s ability to gather phone data on
millions of Americans hinges on the secret redefinition of the word 'relevant'". In
by reporting that "
classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on
millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records
Relevant" has long been a broad
standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, "everything," is
would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling."
new, says Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who, until December, was the Justice Department's primary authority on
federal criminal surveillance law.[...]Two senators on the Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Mark Udall (D., Colo.), have
argued repeatedly that there was a "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. The senators' offices tell the Journal that this new
interpretation of the word "relevant" is what they meant. Think about that. Doesn't that suggest to you that Messrs Wyden and Udall were
afraid they might be subject to some sort of censure or reprisal were they to share with the public specific details about the official
interpretation of the law to which the public is subject? And those specific details were about the interpretation of "relevant"? Now that that
All this somehow got me thinking of the doctrine of
"democracy promotion", which was developed under George W. Bush and maintained
more or less by Barack Obama. The doctrine is generally presented as half-idealism, halfpracticality. That all the people of the Earth, by dint of common humanity, are entitled to the
protections of democracy is an inspiring principle. However, its foreign-policy implications are not
cat's out of the bag, I guess we're in danger?
really so clear. To those of us who are sceptical that America has the authority to intervene whenever and wherever there are thwarted
democratic rights, the advocates of democracy-promotion offer a more businesslike proposition. It is said that authoritarianism, especially
theocratic Islamic authoritarianism, breeds anti-American terrorism, and that swamp-draining democracy-promotion abroad is therefore a
If you don't wish to asphyxiate on poison gas in a subway,
or lose your legs to detonating pressure-cookers at a road-race, it is in your
interest to support American interventions on behalf of democracy across the
globe. So the story goes. However, the unstated story goes, it is equally important that American
democracy not get out of hand. If you don't want your flight to La Guardia to end
in a ball of fire, or your local federal building to be razed by a cataclysm of
exploding fertiliser, you will need to countenance secret courts applying in secret
its own secret interpretation of hastily drawn, barely debated emergency security
measures, and to persecute with the full force of the world's dominant violent
power any who dare afford a glimpse behind the veil. You see, democracy here at
home must be balanced against the requirements of security, and it is simply too
dangerous to leave the question of this balance to the democratic public. Open
priority of American national security.
deliberation over the appropriate balance would require saying something concrete about threats to public safety, and also about the means
by which those threats might be checked. But revealing such information would only empower America's enemies and endanger American
the power to determine that this is
a discussion the public cannot afford to have cannot reside in the democratic
public. That power must reside elsewhere, with the best and brightest, with those who
lives. Therefore, this is a discussion Americans can't afford to have. Therefore,
have surveyed the perils of the world and know what it takes to meet them. Those deep within the security apparatus, within the charmed
circle, must therefore make the decision, on America's behalf, about how much democracy—about how much discussion about the limits of
democracy, even—it is safe for Americans to have.
This decision will not be effective, however, if it is
openly questioned. The point is that is not up for debate. It is crucial, then, that any attempt by those on the inside to reveal the
real, secret rules governing American life be met with overwhelming, intimidating retaliation. In order to maintain a legitimising
democratic imprimatur, it is of course important that a handful of elected officials be brought into the anteroom of the inner council, but it's
important that they know barely more than that there is a significant risk that we will all perish if they, or the rest of us, know too much, and
they must be made to feel that they dare not publicly speak what little they have been allowed know. Even senators. Even senators must fear
This is
democracy-suppression
to describe America's laws to America's citizens.
, yes,
, but it is a vitally necessary
arrangement. It keeps you and your adorable kids and even your cute pet dog alive. Now, I don't believe I've heard anyone make this
argument, no doubt because the logic of the argument cuts against it being made. Yet it seems similar reasoning must underpin the system
of secret government that has emerged from the examination of Mr Snowden's leaks, and I cannot help but suspect that something along
these lines has become the unspoken, unspeakable doctrine of Mr Obama's administration. Yet I remember when the Mr
Obama
announced this: My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented
level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust
and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.
Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. That would have been
some real democracy-promotion, right here in the homeland. What happened? Is it naive to think Mr
Obama really believed this stuff? I'll admit, with some embarrassment, that I'd thought he did believe it. But this "commitment" has been so
thoroughly forsaken one is forced to consider whether it was ever sincere. It has been so thoroughly forsaken one wonders whether to laugh
What kind of message are we sending about the viability these democratic
ideals—about openness, transparency, public participation, public collaboration?
How hollow must American exhortations to democracy sound to foreign ears? Mr
Snowden may be responsible for having exposed this hypocrisy, for having betrayed the thug omertà at the heart of
America's domestic democracy-suppression programme, but the hypocrisy is America's. I'd very much like to know
or cry.
what led Mr Obama to change his mind, to conclude that America is not after all safe for democracy, though I know he's not about to tell us.
The matter is settled. It has been decided, and not by us. We can't handle the truth.
The plan sends the signal of credibility on democracy—domestic surveillance
is both sufficient and necessary
Katulis 9 - Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who served on the State Department’s policy
planning staff in the last years of the Clinton administration after living and working on the ground for the National Democratic Institute in
Egypt and the Palestinian territories. (“Democracy Promotion in the Middle East and the Obama Administration,”
https://www.tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Katulis.pdf 2009) STRYKER
the United States should take steps to restore habeas corpus and bring
wiretap surveillance efforts back into the framework of the rule of law in the
United States. Sending the signal that the United States is cleaning up its act
on these fronts is a necessary step for reviving U.S. credibility on democracy
promotion in the Middle East. Without some progress on these measures,
anything else that the new administration tries to do on democracy promotion—
whether it is political party building or civil society support, or any of the other traditional programs in the U.S. toolbox—will likely
yield few results because of the substantial credibility gap. The new
administration needs to send a clear message that the United States intends to
practice what it preaches by adhering to the legal obligations it assumed in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and other human
More broadly,
rights treaties. Strengthening the legal framework for rule of law will require not only action on the part of the Obama administration but
also engagement by leaders in the U.S. Congress. How the United States reintroduces itself to the world—keeping its national security policy
in line with the highest human rights standards—will set the framework for how U.S. actions on the democracy promotion front are
perceived throughout the Middle East.
Only domestic policy changes can make democracy promotion effective
Al-Rodhan 14 - Nayef Al-Rodhan is director of the Centre for the Geopolitics of Globalization and Transnational Security at the
Geneva Centre for Security Policy. (“Reforming Democracy and the Future of History: To spread Democracy,
democratic nations must look inward first.” http://www.theglobalist.com/reforming-democracy-and-thefuture-of-history/ 6/14/2014) STRYKER
In 1975, a report prepared by the Trilateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy, signaled the
pessimism and defeatism prevailing in Western democracies at the time about
the future and sustainability of democracy. The report reflected a deep economic downturn, as well as social
and political turmoil. This crisis of democracy was tightly connected with concerns about “monopoly capitalism,” rampant materialism and
Four decades later, democracy is again in a state of crisis. This comes as
somewhat of a surprise, given that successive waves of democratization have
touched every region of the world over the past 40 years. What is becoming evident now is
that an opposite trend has emerged. Democracy has in fact been in retreat for
years, as many repressive governments became even more repressive, civil
liberties were dropped and the military was empowered in many countries. The state of
corruption.
democracy today In the early 1990’s, the end of the Cold War had brought the revalidation of democracy with great vigour as the most
representative form of government. Yet this exuberance has been counterbalanced with criticism of its failings and shortcomings.
Democracies guarantee political freedom, the rule of law, human rights and a
platform for citizens to engage in the political process. Yet, in practice,
democracies feature numerous inadequacies. Inequality, economic disparity, disempowerment, lack of
opportunity, infringements of civil liberties, ethnic, social and cultural discrimination, corruption and opaque honor titles systems are all
present, and apparently not antagonistic to democracies. Globally, democracies have also acted in ways that suggest an outright
Irresponsible conduct, including unwarranted
invasions, toleration of brutality, genocide, misuse of the UN veto system at the expense of global harmony and peace, as well
geopolitical machinations or meddling in the affairs of weaker states — these are all traits that have characterized the
foreign conduct of major democratic states at some point. Inequality alienates Western
democracies like the United States, United Kingdom or France — traditionally considered “advanced
democracies” — experience acute inequalities, and even cases of abject poverty. In 2009, a U.S. government report pointed to the
renunciation of their principles at home.
dramatic increase in hunger and food insecurity. About 50 million people were identified as having suffered food insecurity at some point
during the previous year. One in five people in the United Kingdom are also identified as falling below the poverty line. Growing inequality
is at times reinforced by, and an enabler of, shrinking opportunity. This fuels disillusionment and low political participation. As Joseph
Stiglitz has noted, “The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security — they can buy all
these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have
had.” Corporate financing of political campaigns have reinforced this, hijacking the democratic process. It further alienates voters who feel
they are excluded from a process that is beyond their control. The role of money in politics is worth singling out as a major problem with
democratic governance. Its effects are truly worrisome, especially when there is little transparency and regulatory mechanisms to limit the
distorting role of money in politics. A check is worth a thousand words The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the “Citizens United”
case openly enshrined the right of unlimited campaign spending, giving corporations, associations and billionaire donors the freedom to
heavily and undemocratically influence government, perversely as an expression of their free speech. The “super PACs” have blurred the
line between the personal and the political. They reinforce and perpetuate the rotation of policymakers in the U.S. Congress and the
executive branch, many of whom are already part of the wealthiest 1% (and, under any circumstance, remain kept in office by money from
the top 1%). Whatever constraints existed to this practice, they were expunged earlier in 2014 when the Supreme Court opened the door to
even more money in politics by striking down the aggregate contribution limits for campaigns. The decision means, in very practical terms,
that one single donor can contribute millions of dollars to political candidates or campaigns and thereby dim the prospect of new entrants,
the sense of disillusionment with democracy in its
current form has been reinforced with disclosures of large-scale government
surveillance, violations of privacy and civil liberties. The claim of sweeping
authority over the right to collect personal data is harmful to core liberties.
Overseeing the overseers and keeping states’ need to know in balance with the
safeguard of privacy and civil liberties remains a challenge. Reforming democracy Opinion
polls across many continents reflect this current dissatisfaction with democracy.
These forms of disillusionment indicate the need to embrace a paradigm that
goes beyond political freedom and addresses the basic human need for dignity.
ideas or challengers to the political arena. Finally,
Democracy guarantees political freedom and rights. Yet it is not incompatible with marginalization, exclusion, poverty, disempowerment or
disrespect. The triumph of a liberal democratic order as a final destination of history and historical ideas, as once predicted by the “end of
A greater emphasis on human dignity and a governance
model that places dignity at the center can halt the current disenchantment
with democracy. A more feasible paradigm is an approach I call Sustainable History. It focuses on dignity rather than just
history”, needs a serious re-evaluation.
freedom. And it allows for reconciling accountable governance with various political cultures.
Democracy promotion is effective—the US model is crucial
Fukuyama and McFaul 7 - Francis Fukuyama is a professor of international political economy and director of the
International Development Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. Michael McFaul
is a Hoover Senior Fellow, a professor of political science, and director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at
Stanford University. He is also a nonresident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a member of TWQ's
editorial board. (“Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?”
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v031/31.1fukuyama.html 2007) STRYKER
Restoring the U.S. Example Inspiration for democrats struggling against
autocracy and a model for leaders in new democracies are two U.S. exports now
in short supply. Since the beginning of the republic, the U.S. experiment with democracy has
provided hope, ideas, and technologies for others working to build democratic
institutions. Foreign visitors to the United States have been impressed by what they have seen, and U.S. diplomats, religious
missionaries, and businesspeople traveling abroad have inspired others by telling the story of U.S. democracy. In the second
half of the twentieth century, during which the United States developed more
intentional means for promoting democracy abroad, the preservation and
advertisement of the U.S. democratic model remained a core instrument.
Arab democracy promotion creates stability and US perception is key
O'Connell 12 - Jamie O'Connell is a Senior Fellow of the Honorable G. William and Ariadna Miller Institute for Global
Challenges and the Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, as well as a Lecturer in Residence. He teaches and writes on
political and legal development, and has particular expertise in law and development, transitional justice, democratization, post-conflict
reconstruction, and business and human rights. (“Common Interests, Closer Allies: How Democracy in Arab States Can Benefit the West,”
Stanford Journal of International Law, Lexis Nexis, Summer, 2012) STRYKER
The foreign policies of Western countries, and others, reflect policymakers' and citizens' conceptions of their national interests more than
their ideals. This Part explains how democratic change in the Arab world would advance important Western interests in that region, based
Democratization is a very good
foreign policy bet for Western countries, even though it is not an "international
cure-all" that will solve every problem or advance every interest. n61 Subpart A argues that
on qualitative and quantitative social science research and policy analysis.
Arab countries would likely be more internally stable - a central concern of Western foreign policy - if they were governed democratically.
Democracy facilitates peaceful negotiation of the competing interests found in
any society. The results of empirical studies of the links between democracy and
internal stability strongly support the conclusion that democratization will
enhance the stability of Arab countries in the long run, and for many of them in
the short run as well. Subpart B elaborates on Immanuel Kant's "democratic peace" thesis - that
democracies do not fight wars against each other - which has acquired extensive
scholarly support in recent years. As Arab countries democratize, the risk of
military conflict involving them and other democracies, including in the West, is
likely to decline. Subpart C argues that democratization in Arab countries would reduce the
threat of terrorism against the West, for reasons set out by the United States' official counterterrorism policy and
supported by academic research on terrorism. Subpart D addresses the concern that, given a choice, Arab
citizens will choose leaders less friendly to Western countries than current or recently deposed dictators. It argues that Arab countries'
interests in relation to the West have not changed, so dramatic shifts in their foreign policies are unlikely in the near future. More
democratization creates an opportunity for Western countries to solidify
cooperation with Arab countries, because their fundamental interests dovetail
with those of the bulk of the population across the region. Ultimately, Arab citizens
who are convinced of Western countries' benign intentions will be more
reliable allies than dictators concerned only with their own survival and
enrichment. The Subpart also argues that concern for Israel's security should not dilute Western enthusiasm for Arab
democratization. These four likely benefits - greater internal stability, less interstate
conflict, less transnational terrorism, and stronger and more reliable long-term
alliances - together constitute a strong case that democratization in Arab
countries will serve Western countries' interests as well as their values.
importantly,
Middle East war goes nuclear
Stirling 11 (The Earl of Stirling 11, hereditary Governor & Lord Lieutenant of Canada, Lord High Admiral of Nova Scotia, & B.Sc.
in Pol. Sc. & History; M.A. in European Studies, “General Middle East War Nears - Syrian events more dangerous than even nuclear
nightmare in Japan”, http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2011/03/general-middle-east-war-nears-syrian.html)
Any Third Lebanon War/General Middle East War is apt to involve WMD on both side
quickly as both sides know the stakes and that the Israelis are determined to end,
once and for all, any Iranian opposition to a 'Greater Israel' domination of the entire
Middle East. It will be a case of 'use your WMD or lose them' to enemy strikes.
Any massive WMD usage against Israel will result in the usage of Israeli
thermonuclear warheads against Arab and Persian populations centers in large
parts of the Middle East, with the resulting spread of radioactive fallout over
large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. However, the first use of nukes is apt to be lower yield
warheads directed against Iranian underground facilities including both nuclear sites and governmental command and
control and leadership bunkers, with some limited strikes also likely early-on in Syrian territory.¶ The
Iranians are
well prepared to launch a global Advanced Biological Warfare terrorism based strike
against not only Israel and American and allied forces in the Middle East but also
against the American, Canadian, British, French, German, Italian, etc.,
homelands. This will utilize DNA recombination based genetically engineered 'super killer
viruses' that are designed to spread themselves throughout the world using
humans as vectors. There are very few defenses against such warfare, other than total
quarantine of the population until all of the different man-made viruses (and there could be dozens or even over a
hundred different viruses released at the same time) have 'burned themselves out'. This
could kill a third of
the world's total population. ¶ Such a result from an Israeli triggered war would
almost certainly cause a Russian-Chinese response that would eventually finish
off what is left of Israel and begin a truly global war/WWIII with multiple war
theaters around the world. It is highly unlikely that a Third World War, fought
with 21st Century weaponry will be anything but the Biblical Armageddon.