*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention
AT: Democracy Promotion Leads to Results Bad for US Interests
Download 2.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- --Freedom/Human Rights
AT: Democracy Promotion Leads to Results Bad for US InterestsDEMOCRACY PROMOTION BEST WAY TO PROMOTE US SECURITY AND PROSPERITY Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 444 In a world of ongoing security threats—terrorism, narcotrafficking, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to name a few—and of new threats such as cyberwarfare and China’s expanding military power and strategic ambitions, promoting freedom and democracy will sometimes recede in priority and visibility. But it should always be an important foreign policy objective. The states that gravely threaten international security are all autocracies, or at least illiberal and weak democracies urgently in need of strengthening. Ultimately, nothing will better advance the security and prosperity of the US and its democratic allies than the gradual movement of the entire world toward more, and more liberal, democracies. REAGAN PUSHED DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AS A MEANS TO BETTER SECURE US INTERESTS Dionysis Markakis, Center for International and Regional Studies- Georgetown University, 2016, US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: The Pursuit of Hegemony, p. 3 Ronald Reagan (Republican, 1981-90) was the first to truly position the ideology of “democracy” as a guiding principle of US foreign policy, in the belief that “freedom” could defeat the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration subsequently formulated the strategy of democracy promotion, established much of the “infrastructure of democracy,” as for example the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and implementing reform initiatives in countries as diverse as the Philippines, Chile and Poland. This was based ultimately on the recognition that the maintenance of the status quo, namely the support of coercive authoritarian governments, was unsustainable in the long-term. As Carl Gershman, the president of the NED, stated in 1986: “In a world of advanced communication and exploding knowledge, it is no longer possible to rely solely on force to promote stability and defend the national security. Persuasion is increasingly important, and the United States must enhance its capacity to persuade by developing techniques for reaching people at many different levels.” Gershman argued that through democracy promotion the US would ‘enhance its capacity to persuade.’ HAMAS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT US PROMOTION OF ELECTIONS DAMAGES OUR SECURITY INTERESTS Thomas Carothers, Vice President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, House Hearing: Human Rights and Democracy Assistance: Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid, June 10, [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56888/html/CHRG-111hhrg56888.htm] But with respect to pushing, pushing, pushing on elections, in 98 percent of cases countries' election schedules are set in their Constitution; and it really isn't up to us. Palestine had had elections before. Yassar Arafat was elected before. In almost all cases in the world, it really isn't up to us to decide whether or not a country has an election. It is up to us to decide whether or not we can help make that a better election. And so I think the dilemma about or the idea that we are out there causing all these elections in the world is a little bit of a red herring and the fact that we focus so much on the case of Hamas is because it is so exceptional. There have been surprisingly few cases in the last 25 years of elections that have really produced damaging results to American security. In 99 of 100 cases, it is better if a country lets the system breathe, has elections, and continues with its constitutional schedule. So what we are really trying to push for is better elections. We are really not in the driver's seat about whether elections. And so the push, push, pushing on elections really is or at least should be let's push on better elections. --Freedom/Human RightsDemocracy Promotion Grounded in Increased Respect for Human RightsDEMOCRACY PROMOTION GROUNDED IN LIBERALISM – RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW Daniela Huber, Senior Fellow Instituto Affari Internazionali, Rome, 2015, Democracy Promotion and Foreign Policy: Identity and Interests in US, EU, and Non-Western Democracies, p. 23-4 Today’s democracy promotion tends mainly toward a liberal model of democracy. This applies to US and European democracy promotion, as well as to Indian approaches or those of Turkey. According to Jurgen Habermas who has distinguished three contemporary normative models of democracy—the liberal, republican, and deliberative model—liberal democracy sees the human being as a homo oeconomicus and society as a “market-structured network of interactions among private persons” in which rational interests of individuals are aggregated into a competitive political system through elections; votes are expressions of preferences. Contributions to liberal democratic thought range from John Locke, James and John Stuart Mill, and Joseph Schumpeter to Robert Dahl, or – in an extreme from – Friedrich Hayek and Robert Nozick. Since Robert Dahl’s definition has not only become paradigmatic in political science, but also provided clear criteria for assessing democracy, this study uses it as a definitional anchor point. Democracy is reached when all citizens have equal opportunities for expressing their preferences, for setting the agenda and deciding on different outcomes (effective participation), for expressing a choice (voting equality at the decisive stage), and for discovering and validating (enlightened understanding)’ when the people have the exclusive opportunity to decide how matters are placed on the agenda (control of the agenda); and when equality extends to all citizens within the state (inclusiveness) (Dahl 1989). In this model of democracy, fair rules of the game are guaranteed through the rule of law as well as human rights in the liberal understanding of the term which mainly includes liberal defensive rights, civil and political rights, and a certain level of social and economic rights (at least in Dahl’s definition which supposes some degree of socio-economic equality). Indeed, the rule of law and human rights are central background conditions of this model of democracy. None of Dahl’s criteria is imaginable without classic civil and political rights, such as the freedom of speech and assembly. This explains why liberal democracy promoters tend to group democracy, human rights, and the rule of law together—all three belong to the substantive content of liberal democracy promotion. Turning from background conditions to the essence of democracy, in the process of “contestation and participation” (Dahl, 1971), free and fair elections are central, but so are actors such as political parties, civil society organizations (CSOs), and the media. Finally, on the level of citizens, enlightened understanding and inclusiveness presupposes an educated citizenry, as well as the guarantee of minority rights. Table 2.1 sums up the substantive content of liberal democracy promotion. Directory: assets assets -> Northern territory of australia assets -> Number: caveat in the [Will/Will and Codicil/Estate of] assets -> Invitation for Bid Calact/mbta for Standard Floor and Low Floor Rural Duty Vehicles ifb no. 12-03 November 14, 2012 assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> Sigaccess annual Report assets -> Central Government is expected to ask the seventh pay commission to consider merging 50% dearness allowance assets -> List of accessible executive records assets -> Emergency telephone numbers Call toll-free from anywhere in France Download 2.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|