This house would promote democratization

The role that the developed world should play on the international stage has been a constant battle throughout its history between those that favour isolationism and those that favour a more engaged overseas policy. From the early nineteenth-century European powers set out an Imperialist project to 'humanise' the 'less advanced' peripheral countries of Africa, Asia and South America¹. By way of contrast, 'Splendid Isolation' was the policy adopted by imperial Britain in the late nineteenth-century under the government of Disraeli and the Marquis of Salisbury whereby they did not intervene in the affairs of other countries unless it absolutely involved Great Britain; this inevitably meant a withdrawal from the practice of promoting the 'humanising' political system, at least in Europe². These two policies embody the different attitudes to foreign policy among world powers.

In the new millennium however, what democracy promotion means and implies is a very important issue with many far reaching consequences. Traditionally developed countries have supported democracy promotion through aid programs and development assistance. As key stakeholders in multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization, developed countries are in a strong position (some say too strong a position) to attach democratic conditions to aid and trade deals, should it so wish. Propaganda and other such soft, persuasive methods are more popular as they are seen as being less intrusive. However, with the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya the use of military force to promote democracy has entered into the debate as well.

The question is, should countries be pressured to conform to what is simply the current predominant mode of government in the Western world? Or is democracy an inherently superior system that we should strive to see implemented across the globe?

¹ 'New Imperialism' Wikipedia

² 'Splendid Isolation', Wikipedia