THBT Democracy is Not the Answer for Every Country - Reply Speaker Script

5/24/2018 THBT Democracy is Not the Answer for Every Country - Reply Speaker Script - slidepdf....

http:///reader/full/thbt-democracy-is-not-the-answer-for-every-country-reply-sp

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 includecitizen 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 isthedefinite answer for every country. Thank you.

THBT Democracy is Not the Answer for Every Country - Reply Speaker Script

Documents

Transcript of THBT Democracy is Not the Answer for Every Country - Reply Speaker Script