VIVUM 15 Parliamentary Debate - Finals

This house believes that liberal democracies that overthrow the

governments of other states should impose power sharing even when
this overrides or delays democratic representation.
Welcome to the finals of the VIVUM 15 Parliamentary Debate! I would first like to
congratulate you on getting this far in the competition after 5 gruelling rounds
and intense debates, you have proven yourself and to others the quality of
debate you possess. Now... to win the grand final!
While in most countries, democracy promotion is simply an attempt to encourage
and facilitate transitions from authoritarianism, in post-conflict countries,
democracy promotion often takes on a strongly coercive quality. Since 1990
international interventions to end civil war, either by diplomatic means or
military intervention, have been followed by a process of coercive
democratization. Countries where interventions take place are forced by the
international community to adopt a democratic system of government regardless
of existing conditions and/or citizens preference. They are quickly put through
the formal steps expected to make democracy a reality, usually beginning with
elections. This process of democratization supposedly complements any previous
peace agreement, helping to stabilize the country and consolidate the peace.
Major interventions have taken place in Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Liberia,
Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Timor Leste (East Timor), Afghanistan and
Iraq. Some of these interventions were carried out by the UN, some by regional
organizations ranging from NATO in Europe to ECOWAS (Economic Community of
West African States) in Africa, some by individual countries acting on their own
(the US in Iraq) or on behalf of the international community (Australia in East
Timor). But in all these cases coercive democratization was incorporated into the
intervention as an instrument to seal the initial agreement and stabilize a
turbulent peace.
Possibly the most acute situation present right now is that of Iraq. The primary
issue in Iraq are the two different ethnic groups the Sunni Muslims and the
Shia Muslims. Sunni Muslims are fearful of democracy being the minority and
feel they will lose power. Shia Muslims on the other hand are not in favour of
power sharing and support elections (but not necessarily other aspects of
democracy) as a means of getting power. The Kurdish issue is one of a desire for
autonomy no matter what the majority of Iraq wants.
So what should be the solution to the pressing issue power sharing or
democracy? Some would argue that power sharing is one of the only possible
forms of democracy for non-homogenous societies and regulating ethnic conflict.
Furthermore, it has also been argued that democracy has winners and losers
further encouraging tensions especially in countries which have undergone a civil
war and power sharing often encourages a national identity amongst the people.

However, Democracy is about the distribution of political power through

institutions and laws that guarantee accountable rule. Democracy as a principle
can be argued as the only legitimate system that works for benefit of everyone.
Furthermore, given time, democracy can also be the best guarantee for the
advancement of people in minority groups.
This debate is of paramount importance in the world as of today and an
agreement on this issue is important to preserve peace in the world today.