Quebec would not be able to be economically viable on its own.  Quebec independence simply will not work because Quebec would not be financially viable as an independent economy.  Quebec has been financially dependent on the rest of Canada for years [1] specifically being dependent on “have” provinces such as Alberta to prop-up its economy as a “have-not” provinces through equalization payments [2] . Moreover, all financial indicators point to the situation staying as it is or worsening, with no signs of improvement in the economy visible [3] .  If Quebec were to gain independence, it simply would not be able to sustain itself as an independent country. Quality of life would necessarily have to drop for all those living in Quebec and the economy would only crash further as confidence in it would dwindle once you remove the credibility the support of the Canadian government and economy that currently gives it.  Therefore, Quebec should not secede from Canada as it would only serve to harm their economy and the livelihoods of the people they supposedly are there to protect.  [1] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [2] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .  [3] Van Praet, Nicolas. "No progress in Quebec prosperity: report." Financial Post 30 Aug 2011, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <  .


government local government voting house believes quebec should secede canada

Quebec is in a unique position as the homeland for French-speaking Canadians and therefore has a very different mandate than a normal state or province. Quebec has an obligation to the rights of French Canadians as a group due to its unique position, and just because Anglo-Canadians have migrated to Quebec does not mean that the primacy of this special obligation has disappeared because the mandate’s representation within its territory has been diluted.


government voting house would have no elections rather sham elections

While elections can create a focal point for protest and violence this may actually make things more predictable not less. Countries without elections are not without opposition groups and protests, all this means is that the spark for the protests is going to be different; police beating someone up, a particularly extravagant piece of corruption, an attempted cover up, the disappearance of an opposition activist. Not having elections simply prevents the divisions in society from being highly visible; it does not get rid of the divisions, indeed it gets rid of one of the safety valves.


Avoids the costs and uncertainty of elections  It is hard to see what the benefit of an election that can change nothing is, but there are certainly all the costs associated with a normal election. Elections can be costly in financial terms, the United States elections cost several billion dollars but even much smaller and less extravagant elections need financing. Zimbabwe’s elections in 2013 forced the government to ask its neighbours for $85 million to carry out the polls, for a nation that is essentially bankrupt this is a lot of money. [1]  Another cost is uncertainty. In fully democratic elections the uncertainty is with what the policies will be when the government changes. With sham elections the uncertainty is whether the elections will be a focus for violence. Sometimes this is during campaigning itself as with Zimbabwe in 2008 where up to 200 people were killed. [2] Otherwise violence occurs when there is a perception that an election has been stolen so the Green Movement in Iran took to the streets and was met with a violent crackdown in 2009. [3]  [1] VOA News, ‘Zimbabwe Seeks Help to Cover Election Costs’, Voice of America, 10 July 2013,   [2] ‘Zimbabwe: No Justice for Rampant Killings, Torture’, Human Rights Watch, 8 March 2011,   [3] AFP, ‘Iran opposition says 72 killed in vote protests’, Google, 3 September 2009,


There is little evidence that countries without elections are more willing to take difficult decisions, or able to take wise decisions, than those that face some form of election. Many petro states have failed to diversify their economies despite having the money to do so – often investing in wild ideas such as Saudi Arabia investing $84 billion in agriculture in the desert from 1985-2000. [1]  [1] Alterman, Jon B., ‘Water and National Strength in Saudi Arabia’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, March 2011,


Having no elections is honest  Holding sham elections is fundamentally dishonest as it is asking the people to choose a government and then ignoring their choice. Not holding elections is at least honestly telling the people that they get no say in who is in power. Holding a sham election inevitably means having to lie to the people somewhere along the line; whether it is in preventing people registering, or voting, or in manipulating the results. The people usually know the result is a sham or at least are suspicious – in the latest Zimbabwean election the headlines in the newspapers included “ZANU-PF gloats over victory”. [1]  Without a sham election the government can at least be honest with their people so enabling a level of trust or even a kind of contract between the two – the government and the people each lets the other get on with it. Thus for example in China trust in government in 2012 was 76% against the world average of 51%. [2]  [1] Chinaka, Cris, ‘Africa and West at odds over disputed Zimbabwe election’, Reuters, 4 August 2013,   [2] Sedghi, Ami, and Rogers, Simon, ‘Do we trust our government? See how your country compares’, TheGuardian.com, 24 January 2012,


Being honest about depriving the people of their right to choose the government is not beneficial. An unwillingness to hold elections does not build any trust even when the government has proved itself capable at governing because an unwillingness to hold elections fundamentally shows distrust by government of the people. If the government trusted the people in return it would trust them to elect a competent government and representatives.


The problem with good governance and economic success as the basis of legitimacy is that a crisis of legitimacy is created whenever growth falters or corruption comes to light. Legitimacy based upon performance also has the problem that if a certain performance becomes normal then the benchmarks must be higher and higher over time to continue to provide legitimacy. [1] Having legitimacy at least in part based on periodic elections, even if these are somehow rigged, is more sustainable as the legitimacy is renewed whenever there is a new election or change in government. This has the added benefit that as fairer elections are seen as more legitimate there is a greater chance that sham elections will become real elections to ensure the regime has more legitimacy even at the risk of it being voted out - as shown recently by Burma being willing to take the democratic route.  [1] Lam, Jon-Jon, ‘Performance Legitimacy: an Unstable Model for Sustaining Power’, The Politic, 10 January 2013,


Allows the ruler to make necessary but unpopular decisions  Democracy and elections are about popularity but popular decisions are not always the right ones. Even mature democracies have sometimes seen their government’s make use of the levers of government to boost their electoral chances; for example Margaret Thatcher’s government stoked the economy in the Lawson boom in 1987 which just happened to be an election year. [1] Governments without elections can engage in long term planning and make unpopular decisions without fear of the consequences. Thus for example Saudi Arabia is willing to pump less oil (and so get less money in the short term at least) in order to create stability in the oil market by having enough excess capacity to prevent price spikes.  [1] Congdon, Tim, Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism, 2007, p.73


Forces the ruler to find another way to placate the people  Not having any elections – or only elections for a powerless advisory parliament – may actually have a benefit in putting responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the rulers. Only a country that is comparatively well governed, or successful, can manage without a democratic safety valve. It is notable that the remaining absolute monarchies or those where the King rules as well as reigns are mostly very wealthy petro states. Several of the remaining communist regimes, China and Vietnam, rely on rapid economic growth to cement their legitimacy combined with meritocracy in their selection of leaders. In both cases there is an incentive for good governance by those in power as they are in for the long term. The leaders know they are not going to be elected out of office so have the motivation to reduce corruption and create long term growth through investment in infrastructure because this will benefit them in the future. [1]  [1] Feldman, Noah, ‘Feldman examines corruption and political legitimacy in China’, Harvard Law School, 11 March 2013,


If the government were genuinely interested in what the people want then there would be far more reliable ways than through an election. Polling could be done on each individual policy providing a much finer granularity of response to tell policymakers what they really want. All that a government will be able to tell from a sham election is that the people don’t like the government.


States can have elections that have almost no chance of changing the government for decades. These elections can actually set back the cause for genuine democracy. There are several reasons for this. First having elections, or marginally expanding the number of parties or franchise, so providing liberal political reform can be used to keep the opposition on side through constantly dangling the prospect of further reform. Thus Sadat in 1977 allowed elections in response to discontent over peace overtures to Israel and in 1984 following his assassination Mubarak made these elections multiparty. [1]  Secondly having elections can be used to disrupt the opposition as coalitions of disparate elements are difficult to create so it will likely lead to internal squabbling and victory for the ruling party. Encouraging such squabbling will then prevent there being a single recognised opposition party or figure than can be seen as able to take over. When there is no clear path after a revolution the people are going to be much more likely to stick with the dictator they know.  [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.5.


Elections of any sort force rulers to meet their people  Elections almost anywhere in the world mean politicians getting out and campaigning. Regardless of the legitimacy of the final election the leadership of the country will be going out and meeting voters. In many of these events individuals won’t be able to express their views but there are also likely to be protests and meetings where individuals can get their views across. This provides an opportunity for the leader to stay in touch with the people – often a problem with dictators who have been in power too long.  Dictators will want to, and often believe that they are likely to win even without resort to fraud, as Marcos did in 1985. [1] They are then are much more likely to consider the views of the electorate to still be relevant if there are elections than if there are not. Thus for example Mugabe in the most recent elections made a bid for, and won, the youth vote by promising a direct stake in the economy, [2] so responding to their desire for jobs. [3]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  p. 10  [2] Agyemang, Roy, ‘Why a Robert Mugabe victory would be good for Zimbabwe’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [3] AFP, ‘Youth, rural voters may hold key to Zimbabwe election’, Fox News, 27 July 2013,


Sham elections do not mean the elections have no influence or impact.  For an autocracy the election for the top job needs to be predetermined, but the other elections do not. This means that elections for the legislature can still be competitive. The seats do have some influence, provide patronage, and have status attached so there are plenty of people who want to contest them. In the Arab world before the Arab spring there was a less than 25% incumbency rate for legislatures. [1] Having elections that determine control in local areas or allow opposition some control in parliament is far preferable to the alternative where the government appoints everyone. Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in Burma have for example gained entry into Parliament and have despite being a minority had an impact. This has particularly been the case internationally. They have helped liberalise the new Foreign Investment Law and have encouraged more liberalised freedom of the press and association. [2]  [1] Lust, Ellen, ‘The Multiple Meanings of Elections In Non-Democratic Regimes: Breakdown, Response and Outcome in the Arab Uprisings’, Yale University, p.7.   [2] Turnell, Sean, ‘Myanmar has made a good start to economic reform’, East Asia Forum, 27 March 2013,


Even a sham election demonstrates what the people want  In an election the people show what their policy preferences will be. Even if the government is engaging in vote rigging or voter intimidation they will still know how the people voted or wanted to vote (if they stuffed the ballot they will know how many extra votes they added) so will have some guidance as to the policies that the people wish implemented. If there are multiple different parties competing in the elections then it will be possible to tell which party platforms are the most popular and so which to take ideas from.  If there are elections then there are opposition parties and independent MPs who are given much more space than they would be without elections. Being MPs gives the opposition some status and gives them a controlled setting in which to criticise the government. This provides the opposition with the chance to channel the voice of the people and encourage change from the governing party.


Some kind of election is more likely to lead to real democracy than no election  The acceptance by most autocrats that there need to be elections shows the idea that legitimacy derives from the people is generally accepted. Meaning that these states are already part way to having a genuine democracy. Having regular elections, even if the outcome is preordained, means that the electorate becomes used to voting and the idea of voting to make their voice heard. In such circumstances eventually they are going to want their vote to really count. If there is a creeping process of reform eventually this will result in free and fair elections.  Having any kind of elections means that there are people who are recognised as an opposition. This means that there is a viable alternative to the ruling party which can be turned to in a crisis, or can take on the leadership role when the regime is finally toppled. For example in Philippines the opposition was able to create a united opposition party in 1984 and coalesce around Corazon Aquino in the snap elections of 1985. [1] This meant that Aquino was in a position to swiftly set up a government following the people power revolution and flight of Marcos. [2]  [1] Kline, William E., ‘The Fall of Marcos: A Problem in U.S. Foreign Policymaking’, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1992,  Pp.4, 10  [2] Reaves, Joseph A., ‘Marcos Flees, Aquino Rules’, Chicago Tribune, 26 February 1986,


This is simply co-opting the opposition in an attempt to allow the regime to survive longer than it would otherwise done. As Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe has found out even being in a coalition government with a dictator does not give you the power to change the outcome over the long term. He has called his election defeat “coup by ballot” reflecting the vote rigging that he believes occurred to keep President Mugabe in power. [1] The Movement may have had a significant impact during its time in government economically but it totally failed to prise the real power out of the hands of Zanu PF.  [1] Smith, David, ‘Morgan Tsvangirai loses hope following election defeat’, The Guardian, 4 August 2013,


There is little difference between a stage managed election and stage managed events without elections. In either case the chances of the autocrat meeting real people who present opinions that are not on the party message are slim.


local government house would directly elect city mayors

An elected mayor would give the appearance of accountability, but at the risk of stifling democratic debate. At present policies are debated by council committees, and then by the full council, which represents a wide spectrum of views and interests; the public and media can usually attend these meetings, so overall proposals have to survive detailed examination. Focusing power in the hands of one person risks policy mistakes, ignores the interests of minorities, and allows for the possibility of corruption, especially if they are in office for four years and cannot be removed by vote of the council. Ken Livingstone, who was Mayor of London for eight years, argues “It’s easy to avoid serious scrutiny – Boris has had six press conferences in four years. When you come to see how the assembly gets to question him once a month that’s not the same as a detailed scrutiny by a council committee.” [1] Greater accountability could instead be achieved by use of citizens’ juries to consider particular local issues, and local referenda on issues such as the level of council tax.  [1] Waterson, James, ‘Ken: Mayor has too much power for one person’, City A.M., 18 April 2012.


Mayors would be more accountable than a council  Electing mayors would improve accountability in local government. A Mayor would have a bigger mandate, which could be up to 500,000 votes compared to 5,000 for individual councillors making them more directly accountable to the city’s electorate. [1] They are also more visible; 57% of people could name their mayor when they had one compared to only 8% being able to name their council leader and so they are more likely to be held to account for their individual policies. [2] By comparison where there are not mayors an elaborate and confusing series of committees make decisions in most areas, making it easy for individual councillors or parties to dodge responsibility for unpopular decisions or failed policies. Bristol is a good example of this with wobbly coalitions resulting from backroom deals and constantly shifting politics; the council changed hands seven times in the ten years to 2012. [3] Placing this power in the hands of an elected mayor would streamline decision-making and increase accountability. A mayor who failed to improve local services or in other ways implement their campaign promises would have little chance of re-election.  [1] Sims, Sam, ‘Electing mayors for more English cities would increase local democratic accountability and widen political participation. But the government must grant them real power and freedom’, blogs.lse.ac.uk, 7 October 2011.  [2] Gash, Tom, ‘A turning point for England’s big cities’, Institute for Government, 29 March 2012.  [3] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.


Talented individuals with a proven track record are unlikely to seek mayoral office unless local government is given much greater autonomy by central government. With the powers for each city not yet clear many may not be willing to take the risk. The reason for the lack of talent in councils is therefore not because they work as a body rather than one prominent individual but that councils themselves have too little power. Regardless of the system of election, if real power is offered, real leaders will be attracted by the prospect of wielding it and will rise to prominence.


Electing a Mayor will revitalise local democracy  An elected mayor would revitalise local democracy. At present many people have no idea who their local councillors are, or who leads their council, perhaps because collective decision-making is generally unexciting. It is not surprising then that turnout is only around 30% and in some urban areas in Britain fewer than 1 in 4 adults bother to vote in local elections – the worst turnout in the EU. [1] An elected mayor would act as a focus for local people, both symbolically and as someone with real power to improve their lives. Local elections would gain more coverage and more people’s attention as they are voting for one recognisable figure rather than a number of councillors. This in turn would turn attention to local democracy and increase turnout in elections.  [1] Shakespeare, Tom, ‘For Good Measure Devolving Accountability for Performance and Assessment to Local Areas’, Localis, 2010, p.17


Directly elected mayors would do little to renew local democracy. In the past, councils in the UK used to have a great deal of power, controlling schools, housing and local utilities, and setting budgets and raising revenues more or less as they wished. Since 1979 these powers have been greatly reduced with power increasingly centralised in Whitehall, which also greatly limits councils’ financial freedom so that local taxes bear little relation to local expenditure. [1] Not surprisingly, as the real decision-making power of local councils has diminished, so has the proportion of citizens who think it is worth voting for them. There is no reason to think that people will flock in greater numbers to vote for a mayor who may well end up with similar restrictions placed upon them.  [1] Parry, Keith, ‘Local government: timeline from 1979’, House of Commons Library, 10 January 2008.


Electing a maverick candidate could do the image of a town or city a great deal of harm rather than good. Cities such as Birmingham have already been highly successful at attracting inward investment under the present system of local government. In any case, the major bureaucratic constraints on investment relate to issues of subsidy and tax-breaks, which are outlawed by the EU, and to national taxation and planning policies, set in Whitehall, none of which will be affected by an elected mayor.


Elected Mayors would attract the best candidates to run for office.  Elected mayors would allow talented individuals to make a difference, regardless of their party affiliation. The present system rewards long-serving and loyal party hacks rather than innovative managers, thinkers and leaders; polls show that the public think councillors put party politics above the needs of their community. Those who are most talented who are elected are simply using the council as a stepping stone for running for national office. If mayors were directly elected, local parties would have to find dynamic candidates with a proven ability to solve problems and manage big organisations, or risk such candidates running and winning as independents. This has already been shown to be the case in London where Ken Livingstone (who initially became Mayor as an independent) and Boris Johnson, both established and well known politicians, ran for Mayor, and in Birmingham where Lam Byrne, formally no.2 at the treasury, has expressed an interest in running. [1]  [1] BBC News, ‘Labour’s Liam Byrne wants to run for Birmingham mayor’, 30 March 2012.


Mayors would raise the profile of the city they represent  Elected mayors would speak on behalf of their communities, raising the profile of their town or city nationally and internationally. This could be particularly valuable when negotiating with businesses, helping to draw valuable investment into their area and overcoming bureaucratic hurdles that typically hinder development. Chambers of commerce in cities that are holding referendums believe a figurehead will provide a focal point for business relations and a single point of contact that champions the city’s interests. [1] In addition, mayors would give local government in general a higher profile after years of increasing centralisation by national government. Acting collectively, and through the change in attitudes their higher media profile would generate, mayors would be able to draw power away from the centre once again and bring it closer to the people.  [1] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.41


While there may be some extra costs to having a mayor this is likely to be marginal and overall costs may well fall, as Prime Minister Cameron argues “if you end up with a mayor, you’ll actually save money, because mayors can bang heads together, get rid of bureaucracy, and right now, any mayor worth their salt will be trying to get bills down.” [1] There are many layers of funding which create needless overlaps and administration; in Leicester it is estimated for economic development it costs £135 million in overheads to spend £176 million on projects, [2] an inefficiency the new mayor would be in a good position to get to grips with.  [1] ITV News, ‘Bristol mayor will save money, says Prime Minister’, A Mayor for Bristol, 24, April 2012.  [2] Carter, Andrew, ‘Mayors and Economic Growth’, in Tom Gash and Sam Sims eds., What can elected mayors do for our cities? Institute for Government, 2012, pp.37-42, p.42


Electing a mayor would not concentrate power too much in the hands of one individual. Although models of local government vary, mayors usually have to pick a cabinet from among the elected councillors and to seek approval for their policies and budget from the whole elected council. A mayor would thus have to persuade and build a consensus in order to govern effectively. This is a more transparent approach to local decision making than the present one, and should therefore be free from the accusations of corruption and nepotism that have been levied at the old system.


Directly elected mayors provide opportunities for populists.  The position of elected mayor is likely to attract populist and maverick candidates, who will seek to capitalise on the unpopularity of party politics with “single issue sloganising, glib promises and headline grabbing” (Ken Walker, Labour leader of Middlesbrough council). [1] A good example is Paul Massey, who has had 25 convictions in the past and yet is running to be Mayor of Salford and could even have a chance of winning. [2] In office such candidates are likely to alienate elected councillors and other crucial local partners, to disappoint voters as their promises run up against the actual limitations of their power, and to neglect many aspects of local government in favour of their own pet issue. This danger is even greater if a far-right candidate were to exploit local concerns about immigration and asylum-seekers to inflame racial tensions. Again Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets is a good example of how this could happen, he has links to a Muslim extremist group, and only needed a mere 23,000 votes, 13% of the electorate because there was such low turnout. [3]  [1] Hetherington, Peter, ‘Vote for US-style mayors exposes deep Labour rifts’, The Guardian, 20 October 2001.  [2] Gilligan, Andrew, ;The town hall dictator taking over near you’, The Telegraph, 22 April 2012.  [3] ibid


Mayors could split economic regions  The value of a mayor is dependent upon that mayor having a distinct area of control. However often this area is set too small. Cities are the hubs for neighbouring towns and countryside as well as the inner city. This could then end up splitting up economic regions. Birmingham and Coventry are very close to each other but at some point in the future could potentially have different city mayors. There would then be confusion; who runs regional transport policy or the West Midlands police that affects both cities? [1]  [1] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.


Mayors will come at a cost  Having Mayors is costly. First of all there is the referendum and the election of the Mayor himself which Bristol council has said could cost up to £400,000. [1] This is then followed by the extra administrative cost created by having a Mayor who will of course have to have deputies, staff, offices, cars and a publicity budget, which could mean up to £3 million a year. [2] This is money that at a time where councils are facing budget cuts could be better spent on shoring up the services councils provide.  [1] The Economist, ‘Why elected mayors matter’, 19 April 2012.  [2] McCabe, Steve, ‘An executive mayor – can we afford it?, Birmingham Mail, 17 April 2012.


Mayors would result in too much centralisation of power.  An elected mayor would have too much power, making the prospect of its misuse alarming. If the mayor has the power to choose their own cabinet of councillors, this could be as small as three members, all of whom could be sacked at will for opposing the wishes of the mayor. If the mayor has the right to delegate powers to his cabinet members, they equally have the authority to reserve all the real powers to themselves. And those councillors outside the cabinet would have little to do other than to monitor broken streetlights and the standard of refuse collection in their ward. Why would talented and ambitious people stand for council in these circumstances, and what would the absence of such people do for the council’s oversight of the mayor?


Coordinating between a few mayors in a region is considerably easier than between hundreds of councillors. The whole point of devolving power is to let local people have more influence and decide for themselves. Neighbouring areas could eventually have referendums to become part of the area controlled by the mayor if it is seen as being necessary just as they would to get a mayor of their own.


If the position of Mayor is given powers then it will attract a wide range of candidates, which may include extremists. However these candidates are no more likely to win than they would be in any other election. As with any other election voters are likely to vote for centrist candidates that have strong manifestos and good ideas about how to solve the city’s problems.


y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy

First, it is not clear whether such a position is topical. Second, it is better to support protesters in this case, rather than taking the lead.  To begin with, it is not clear that assisting individuals in the fight for democracy is a valid interpretation of the phrase "imposing democracy": if the majority of people want it, perhaps it is not really an imposition. But second and more importantly, if internal movements exist, foreign nations should seek to strengthen and support those movements rather than impose a government. Democratic governments gain legitimacy through popular support: both in origin and in survival. A government chosen and filled by the citizenry is far more legitimate, and thus more likely to command respect and maintain order, than one enforced by a foreign regime.


Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.  If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.  1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy


First, democracies are not necessarily more peaceful than other governments. Second, imposition of democracy is likely to fuel terrorism. First, it is not entirely clear that democracies have not gone to war: for example the Central Powers in WWI, although not classified as democracies per se, did have elected parliaments just like the Allies. Further, just because democracies have not gone to war in the past does not mean they will not in the future: a culture of negotiation within the democracy does not necessarily translate into a lack of aggression externally. Second, even if democracies are more peaceful, the imposition of democracy can threaten to world peace by fuelling terrorist movements. Invasions, particularly by Western nations, increase East-West tensions, galvanize terrorist groups by validating their claims that Western nations pose a threat. Indeed, in Osama bin Laden's public "letter to the American people," he cited interventions in Somalia, Palestine, India, Chechnya, Lebanon and Iraq as reasons for the 9/11 attacks1/2.  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.  2 bin Laden, Osama. "Full Text: bin Laden's 'Letter to America.' The Guardian.


Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.  Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan."  2 Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy.


Interventions are far more likely to fail than to succeed. As explained further in Opposition Argument 2, empirically and logically imposed democracy is likely to fail. Governments can try and minimize the risk of failure, but it is inherent to the nature of imposition that a government is being instated against the country's will. It is consequently very unlikely to generate support and remain stable.


There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it.  First, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.


Promoting democracy promotes peace.  By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.


Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.  Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.  1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.


Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.  There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.


Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change.


Unilateral action is burdensome, and dangerous.  POINT  The motion suggests that a particular government is imposing democracy, but in fact it is far better to try and encourage democracy multilaterally. Multilateral assistance, like the UN Democracy Fund which seeks to "strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourages the participation of all groups in the democratic process"1, is better, because it makes the support seem less political and colonial, and more honest. By using the international community to encourage democracy in a given country, we increase the chances of the people in that country respecting and supporting our attempts, rather than viewing them with suspicion2.  1 United Nations Democracy Fund, 'About UNDEF', 2010,  2 Doyle , Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


Attempting to impose democracy may escalate conflict.  Intervening in a country, and attempting to impose a different government, is likely to a) result in backlash and b) destabilize the country by destroying infrastructure and disrupting services. Both these things make it far more likely that violent conflict will emerge, either between the country and the imposers, or within the country, as rival factions are forced to compete for scarce resources and rights protection. Iraq is a prime example of intervention causing a civil war. The previous gulf war combined with sanctions and weeks of bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure resulting in what General Odierno called 'societal devastation'1 and the disbanding of the army and debaathification forced the experienced administrators who ran the country out of their jobs.(Kane, 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', 2011) The result was the attempt to impose democracy was bloody and only partially successful.  1 Parrish, Karen, "Odierno, Crocker: Iraq's Future Still Hinges on U.S. Support", American Forces Press Service, November 15, 2010,  2 Kane, Sean., 'Don't repeat the mistakes of Iraq in Libya', ForeignPolicy.com, April 27, 2011,


The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty  Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.  1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,


The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.  Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan."  2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


Governments can take actions to help reduce conflict. Most people agree that the strategy behind the Iraq War was extremely weak. Furthermore, it was clear that the American government had ulterior motives and that establishing democracy was not the only -- or even the most important -- goal, thus reducing the American government's legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community. Alternately, in nations where backlash against dictatorships causes violent conflict -- like in Syria or Libya -- imposing democracy could bring a chance of stability and a government that people actually trusted.


Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.  Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1.  1 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.


It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.


To rely on multilateral action is utopian. First, the motion does not exclude multilateral cooperation; this house may impose democracy with the support of others. But second, the UN doctrine of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of independent nations means that unilateral or bi-lateral actions are often the only realistic possibilities. This is especially important given that China has a veto on the Security Council and other Security Council regular members are not themselves democracies. If other countries are not willing to help us impose or fight for democracy, why should we not try ourselves?


government voting house believes house lords should be reformed

The accusation that the House of Lords is inherently conservative is an unjust accusation, as proven by their siding with the people on unpopular government policies such as student tuition fees and the 42 days detention. Today no party has a majority in the Chamber, with independent peers holding the balance of power in any vote.


The House of Lords has an inbuilt conservative majority.  The traditional provenance of the House of Lords translates to an in-built Conservative majority. Even so called Liberal and Labour peers are usually conservative in their opinions. They represent a social and economic elite and seem to flaunt diversity monitoring in a house with only 181 female peers and a staggeringly low 31 peers from ethnic minorities. [1] This unfair skew in the favour of the conservative has the power to slow down and revise legislation and is a gross misrepresentation of the British population. The House of Lords should be reformed in order to better reflect the British people so that their actions and decisions benefit the whole of society and not just their own.  [1] Smith, Ben, ‘Ethnic Minorities in Politics, Government and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (18 November 2008) and see  viewed 1 June 2011


House of Lords reform defeats the point; firstly the election process would deter many industry experts and attract political opportunists instead, thus eliminating the current worth of the House of Lords. It likely that if elected the House of Lords would simply become a mirror for the House of Commons. By being non-elected the House of Lords is free from political sways and can work in the long-term interests of the country.


The House of Lords is out of touch with the electorate.  The 19th century US President Abraham Lincoln stated that democracy should be ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ [1] Therefore peers who sit in the house based on noble birth right or their membership of the Church of England, that is itself largely ignored by the people, do not represent the people of Britain.  [1] A' Short Definition of Democracy’, Democracy-building.info, 2005, viewed on 1 June 2011


The House of Lords may not be representative of the British population but instead they represent an array of educated experts who can give informed advice on Government policy.


Although the House of Lords may not be a true expression of ‘democracy’, it has a positive function in the governing of the country and is based in a tradition and heritage that the people of Britain should not try and abandon. One could argue in return that those very decisions and wars that Britain is in involved in to defend ‘democracy’ do not reflect the will of the people and that modern states are not true democracies at all. In practice the British people have a limited say in how the country is run and it would be naïve to champion the idea of Britain being a ‘democracy’ by ignoring the existence of such an overpowering state machine.


Reform would strengthen the House of Lords  Reform of the House of Lords would strengthen the legitimacy of the house and therefore improve its functions. By electing the second chamber they would gain the legitimacy to not simply stall bills but reject them all together or drafts bills of their own, thus facilitating a more dynamic government, able to change. Using a different electoral technique, for example Proportional Representation with members sitting for longer periods would allow them to still be of a different composition to the House of Commons and not sway to short-term political popularity. Electing different portions at different times would also guard against a freak landslide result affecting the house’s balance. By creating a worthy opposition to the House of Commons all issues would be debated and decided upon more fairly and government would be more closely monitored.


The current House of Lords is undemocratic  The House of Lords is undemocratic. Currently the members of the House of Lords consist of hereditary peers, senior members of the Church of England and those appointed by political parties. Whether or not there is an abuse of power or the outcome of the House of Lords is beside the point – its very existence in its current state is undemocratic and as such it should be reformed. It seems nonsensical that a country that lectures to the rest of the world the importance of democracy, to the point of war, should overlook such a grievance in their own society.


The fear of controversy or of an ‘unworkable’ government is not reason to stall reform. If we adopt the stance that a government knows best or if we excuse a government to override the will of its people in the name of the greater good, then we pave the way for the misuse of power. Democracy should be held in the highest regard, only free societies can be secure and developed as shown in numerous historic example. Only fundamentally free societies can be fundamentally secure and developed, which is backed up by many examples from history. [1] Democracy has proved itself as better than the alternatives, where autocracies, oligarchies and theocracies have failed, democracy has prevailed.  [1] Grizold, Professor Anton, Peacebuilding and the impact of post-conflict areas on European security (Department of Political Science, University of Ljublana)


Although a small number of members of the House of Lords are industry experts the fact remains that there is still a proportion of hereditary peers, which guarantees no expertise whatsoever. Furthermore political parties can elect peers which is simply absurd, parties should not be able to appoint their own watch dogs: David Cameron has already appointed 117 peers in less than a year. [1]  [1] Barrett, Matthew, ‘Full House: Cameron warned against appointing more peers’, (20 April 2011) viewed 1 June 2011


Reform would make the House of Lords simply a mirror of the House of Commons  An elected House, even one elected every ten years, would still think about policies that are popular in the short term rather than the long-term welfare of the country, making it closer to the House of Commons in its interest and reducing its role as a balance. By subjecting the second chamber to election there would be two outcomes: if elected at the same time the House of Lords would simply become a mirror-image of the House of Commons rendering it pointless, if elected mid-term the composition of the House of Lords would reflect the tendency for a government to be unpopular mid-term, thus creating gridlock and making the system unworkable. Reform of the House of Lords is impractical and undesirable.


The public is apathetic to reform.  Whether or not reform of the House of Lords should be a top priority in the current economic climate is debateable, let alone whether or not a coalition government would be able to initiate and drive through such measures. Attempts to reform the House of Lords have been delayed time and time again, demonstrating the House of Commons’ reservations on change. [1] A feeling that is no doubt echoed in popular British opinion – as demonstrated by the recent outcome of the Alternative Vote – the public are either adverse to the idea of change or apathetic to it. [2]  [1] Summers, Deborah, ‘Labour's attempts to reform the House of Lords’, The Guardian (27 January, 2009), viewed on 1 June 2011   [2] BBC News, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote, 7 May 2011,


Democracy should not be the end-point aspiration of government.  One should not assume that the lack of democracy is wholly negative; do the majority of people know what is best for the country? Or do industry experts? Could the public reach a consensus on important governing decisions? Government can see the bigger picture and balance the needs of different interest groups to produce the best outcome for all: ‘true’ democracy is simply unworkable and can too easily lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as described by Fareed Zakaria. [1] Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is to look at the two champions of democracy: France and America. France overturned its monarchy and government in the name of liberty, yet quickly descended into mob-rule and violence; ‘democracy’ had a bloody birth. [2] Similarly one only has to look at the appalling levels of inequality within the United States of America to question the nature and worth of ‘democracy’. [3] So if the nature of government is not simply to fulfil notions of ‘democracy’ but to ensure good governance then the House of Lords is still an important institution.  [1] Zakaria, Fareed, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad (New York, 2003)  [2] Doyle, William, The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001)  [3] American Political Science Association Task Force, ‘American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality’, Perspectives on Politics, 2 (2004)


The House of Lords allows a number of experts to influence government policy.  While the members of the House of Lords may represent a small section of society, they also include expert peers including lawyers, scientists, businesspeople, academics, doctors and civil servants that can balance out the sometimes short term, political opportunism present in the House of Commons. Election does not guarantee these expertise and knowledge, so having a second chamber that is appointed rather than elected improves the quality of the governance of the country.


The AV campaign cannot be compared to reform to the House of Lords, furthermore one should not mistake a misinformed public due to political spin, with apathy. Often voters express that they are apathetic because they feel that they can’t change anything, that there vote won’t count: reform that ensures the people running the country are directly elected by the people would help to counter these feelings.


The House of Lords could be elected on a longer term basis than the House of Commons – ten years for example. Furthermore elections could be staggered during this period so the House of Lords would never simply be a ‘mirror’. Furthermore the House of Lords should be democratically elected and it should reflect the will of the people, whether or not this is a ‘mirror’ of the other house is not relevant as it reflects the results in a fair vote. Similarly if elected mid-term and the House of Lords reflected mid-term unpopularity of the ruling party, then this too would be the will of the people – any clashes would be part of the democratic process.


ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms

Being a citizen does not come with a right to know everything that the state does. In much the same way being a shareholder does not mean you get to know absolutely everything every person in a business does. Instead you get the headlines and a summary, most of the time the how the business goes about getting the results is left to the management. Ultimately the state’s purpose is to protect its citizens and this comes before letting them know everything about how that is done.


Citizens have a right to know what is done in their name  The nation exits for its citizens; it depends on their consent to maintain order and to raise finances. The main purpose of the state is law and order, and national defence, both of which are covered by security. As an area that is so central to the role of the government it is vital that the stakeholders in that government, its citizens, know what it is the state is doing in their name for their security.  The Obama administration for example refuses to acknowledge that it is carrying out a campaign using drones while at the same time saying it is “the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.” [1] If the US government is bombing another country then the US people have a right to know with much less ambiguity what exactly is being done, who is being hit, when and where. They also need to be informed of any possible consequences.  [1] Kaufman, Brett, ‘In Court Today: Fighting the CIA’s Secrecy Claims on Drones’, ACLU, 20 September 2012


Transparency in situations of international tension is tricky; with complete transparency how do you engage in bluffing? The state that is completely transparent is tying one hand behind its back in international negotiations.  It is also wrong to assume that transparency will always reduce tensions. Sometimes two countries just have completely incompatible interests. In such instances complete transparency is simply going to set them on a collision course. It is then much better for there to be a bit less transparency so that both sides can fudge the issue and sign up to an agreement while interpreting it in different ways.


Transparency prevents public relations disasters  Transparency is necessary to avoid public relations disasters; particularly in countries where the media has some freedom to investigate for themselves. It is clearly the best policy for the military to make sure all the information is released along with the reasons behind actions rather than having the media finding individual pieces of a whole and speculating to fill the gaps.  A good example would be a collision on 16th January 1966 between a B-52 bomber and a KC-135 tanker while attempting to refuel that destroyed both planes. Accidents happen, and this one cost 11 lives, but could have been much worse as the B-52 had four nuclear bombs on board were not armed and did not detonate. In this case an initial lack of information rapidly turned into a public relations disaster that was stemmed by much more openness by the military and the US Ambassador in Spain. The release of the information reduces the room for the press to fill in the gaps with harmful speculation. [1] In this case there was never much chance of national security implications or a break with Spain as the country was ruled by the dictator Franco, someone who would hardly pay attention to public opinion. But in a democracy a slow and closed response could seriously damage relations.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.65


Transparency is a good in and of itself  The most essential commodity within a state is trust. Trust is essential in all sorts of aspect of our lives; we trust that the paper money we have is actually worth more than a scrap of paper, that doctors performing surgery know what they are doing, that we won't be attacked in the street, and that the government is looking after our interests. In order to create that trust there needs to be transparency so that we know that our institutions are trustworthy. It is the ability to check the facts and the accountability that comes with transparency that creates trust. And this in turn is what makes them legitimate. [1]  The need for trust applies just as much to security as any other walk of life. Citizens need to trust that the security services really are keeping them safe, are spending taxpayers’ money wisely, and are acting in a fashion that is a credit to the country. Unfortunately if there is not transparency there is no way of knowing if this is the case and so often the intelligence services have turned out to be an embarrassment. As has been the case with the CIA and it’s the use of torture following 9/11, for which there are still calls for transparency on past actions. [2]  [1] Ankersmit, Laurens, ‘The Irony of the international relations exception in the transparency regulation’, European Law Blog, 20 March 2013  [2] Traub, James, ‘Out With It’, Foreign Policy, 10 May 2013


Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything.  [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28


This is clearly not always the case. Often transparency means that the public becomes aware when there is little need for them to know. There had been previous nuclear accidents that had caused no damage, and had not been noticed, such as in Goldsboro, N.C. in 1961. [1] If there had been a media frenzy fuelled by released information there would clearly have been much more of a public relations disaster than there was with no one noticing. Since there’re was no harm done there is little reason why such a media circus should have been encouraged. And even without media attention the incident lead to increase safeguards.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.51


Transparency may mean that mistakes or problems are found faster, but it does not mean they are going to be corrected faster. Waste in the defense budget has been known about for years yet it still keeps coming up. Transparency shines a light on the problem but that is not helpful if it does not result in action to solve the problem.


Transparency helps reduce international tension  Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war.  The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness.  Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2]  [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013  [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013


Transparency prevents, or corrects, mistakes  Transparency is fundamental in making sure that mistakes don’t happen, or when they do that they are found and corrected quickly with appropriate accountability. This applies as much, if not more, to the security apparatus than other walks of life. In security mistakes are much more likely to be a matter of life and death than in most other walks of life. They are also likely to be costly; something the military and national security apparatus is particularly known for. [1] An audit of the Pentagon in 2011 found that the US Department of Defense wasted $70 billion over two years. [2] This kind of waste can only be corrected if it is found out about, and for that transparency is necessary.  [1] Schneier, Bruce, ‘Transparency and Accountability Don’t Hurt Security – They’re Crucial to It’, The Atlantic, 8 May 2012  [2] Schweizer, Peter, ‘Crony Capitalism Creeps Into the Defense Budget’, The Daily Beast, 22 May 2012


The public is rational and can make its own assessment of risk. The best course in such cases is transparency and education. If all relevant information is released, along with analysis as to the risk presented by the threat, then the public can be best informed about what kind of threats they need to be prepared for. Terrorism has been blown out of proportion because they are single deadly incidents that are simple to report and have a good narrative to provide 24/7 coverage that the public will lap up. [1] As a result there has been much more media coverage than other threats. It can then be no surprise that the public overestimate the threat posed by terrorism as the public are told what risks are relevant by the amount of media coverage. [2]  [1] Engelhardt, Tom, ‘Casualties from Terrorism Are Minor Compared to Other Threats’, Gale Opposing Viewpoints, 2011  [2] Singer, Eleanor, and Endreny, Phyllis Mildred, Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Disasters and Other Hazards, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993


Drones are an unusual example (though not unique) because they are a new form of warfare over which there are few clear rules and norms. This means that making it transparent will create new norms. However in the vast majority of covert operations if made public they would clearly be illegal and would have to be ended. Drones are also unusual in that the public sees few downsides to the killing, this means there would be less public pressure than in most such operations.


Provides information to competitors  Where there is international competition transparency can be a problem if there is not transparency on both sides as one side is essentially giving its opponent an advantage. This is ultimately why countries keep national security secrets; they are in competition with other nations and the best way to ensure an advantage over those states is to keep capabilities secret. One side having information while the other does not allows the actor that has the information to act differently in response to that knowledge. Keeping things secret can therefore provide an advantage when making a decision, as the one with most information is most likely to react best. [1] Currently there is information asymmetry between the United States and China to the point where some analysts consider that the United States provides more authoritative information on China’s military than China itself does. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.7  [2] Erickson, Andrew S., ‘Pentagon Report Reveals Chinese Military Developments’, The Diplomat, 8 May 2013


In security too much transparency endangers lives  Transparency is all very well when it comes to how much is being spent on a new tank, aircraft, or generals houses, but it is very different when it comes to operations. Transparency in operations can endanger lives. With intelligence services transparency would risk the lives of informants; it is similar with the case of interpreters for US forces in Iraq who were targeted after they were told they could not wear masks because they are considered to be traitors. [1]  In military operations being open about almost anything could be a benefit to the opposition. Most obviously things like the timing and numbers involved in operations need to be kept under wraps but all sorts of information could be damaging in one way or another. Simply because a state is not involved in a full scale war does not mean it can open up on these operations. This is why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen in response to WikiLeaks said “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing… But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” [2]  [1] Londoño, Ernesto, ‘U.S. Ban on Masks Upsets Iraqui Interpreters’, Washington Post, 17 November 2008  [2] Jaffe, Greg, and Partlow, Joshua, ‘Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen: WikiLeaks release endangers troops, Afghans’, Washington Post, 30 July 2010


Transparency can lead to conflict  The idea that transparency is good assumes that the people watching the government be transparent are likely to provide a moderating influence on policy. This is not always the case. Instead transparency can lead to more conflict.  First a nationalist population may force the government into taking more action than it wants. One obvious way to quiet such sentiment is to show that the country is not ready for war; something that may not be possible if being transparent. Instead if it is transparent that the military could win then there is nothing to stop a march to war. It then becomes possible for multiple interest groups to form into coalitions each with differing reasons for conflict trading off with each other resulting in overstretch and conflict. [1]  Secondly when there is a rapidly changing balance of power then transparency for the rising power may not be a good thing. Instead as Deng Xiaoping advised they should “Hide your strength, bide your time”. [2] Showing in the open how your military is expanding may simply force action from the current dominant power. Transparency, combined with domestic media worrying about the other’s build up can make the other side seem more and more of a threat that must be dealt with before it can get any more powerful. It is quite a common international relations theory that one way or another relative power and the quest for hegemony is the cause for war, [3] transparency simply encourages this. William C. Wohlforth points out when studying the cause of the First World War that it is perception of relative power that matters. Germany’s leaders believed it had to strike before it out of time as a result of Russia rapidly industrialising. [4] Transparency unfortunately reduces the ability of the government to manage perception.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.17  [2] Allison, Graham, and Blackwill, Robert D., ‘Will China Ever Be No.1?’, YakeGlobal, 20 February 2013  [3] Kaplan, Robert D., ‘Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things)’, The Atlantic, 20 December 2011  [4] Wohlforth, William C., ‘The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance’, World Politics, Vol.39, No.3, (April 1987), pp.353-381, p.362


Don’t panic!  The role of the security services is in part to deal with some very dangerous ideas and events. But the point is to deal with them in such a way that does not cause public disorder or even panic. We clearly don’t want every report detailing specific threats to be made public, especially if it is reporting something that could be devastating but there is a low risk of it actually occurring. If such information is taken the wrong way it can potentially cause panic, either over nothing, or else in such a way that it damages any possible response to the crisis. Unfortunately the media and the public often misunderstand risk. For example preventing terrorism has been regularly cited in polls as being the Americans top foreign policy goal with more than 80% thinking it very important in Gallup polls for over a decade [1] even when the chance of being killed by terrorism in Western countries is very low. If the public misunderstands the risk the response is unlikely to be proportionate and can be akin to yelling fire in a packed theatre.  While it is not (usually) a security, but rather a public health issue, pandemics make a good example. The question of how much information to release is only slightly different than in security; officials want to release enough information that everyone is informed, but not so much that there is panic whenever there is an unusual death. [2] In 2009 the WHO declared swine flu to be a pandemic despite it being a relatively mild virus that did not cause many deaths, so causing an unnecessary scare and stockpiling of drugs. [3]  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘Americans Say Preventing Terrorism Top Foreign Policy Goal’, Gallup Politics, 20 February 2013  [2] Honigsbaum, Mark, ‘The coronavirus conundrum: when to press the panic button’, guardian.co.uk, 14 February 2013  [3] Cheng, Maria, ‘WHO’s response to swine flu pandemic flawed’, Phys.org, 10 May 2011


Clearly transparency in real time might cause some problems allowing the disruption of ongoing operations. However most of the time information could be released very shortly afterwards rather than being considered secret for 25-30 years. [1] A much shorter timeframe is needed if the transparency is to have any meaning or impact upon policy. In the case of WikiLeaks most of the information was already a couple of years old and WikiLeaks said it made sure that there was no information that could endanger lives released.  We should also remember that a lack of transparency can also endanger lives; this might be the case if it leads to purchases of equipment of shoddy equipment without the proper oversight to ensure everything works as it should. For example many countries purchased bomb detectors that are made out of novelty golf ball finders, just plastic, that do not work from a Briton looking to make a fast buck. It has for example been used to attempt to find car bombs in Iraq. A little transparency in testing and procurement could have gone a long way in protecting those who have to use the equipment. [2]  [1] National Security Forum, No More Secrets, American Bar Association, March 2011, p.8  [2] AFP, ‘Iraq still using phony bomb detectors at checkpoints’, globalpost, 3 May 2013


Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013


Coalitions can form behind expansionist policies regardless of whether there is transparency. If there is no transparency then it is simply an invitation for these groups to overestimate the strength of their own state compared to their opponents. Where there is transparency the figures will at least be available to counter their arguments. It should not be surprising that interest groups do not have as much influence in creating expansionist policy in democracies. [1]  Transparency showing when a state is to be eclipsed is a greater concern but a lack of transparency in such a case is just as bad. No transparency will simply encourage the fears of the state that is to be eclipsed that the rising state is hostile and not to be trusted.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.18


Transparency clearly does not have to extend to things like technical specifications of weapons. Such information would be a clear benefit to a competitor allowing them to build their own while being of little help in terms of transparency as most people could not understand it. On the other hand knowing what a weapons system does simply prevents misunderstanding and misjudgement.


onal europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy

Consultation, collaboration and the attempted creation of a common set of values has not worked and is not likely to work. This language is not much different from what we have heard with every attempt the EU has made to push for further political integration. The role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), as agreed upon back in 1993 during the Maastricht Treaty, was in fact presented very much along similar lines. Fifteen years later however, that united front has not been created. If anything, the EU’s political union, and certain any attempts towards a common foreign policy, have completely disintegrated when faced with the War in Iraq and the larger war on terror and more recently the Euro debt crisis on another front.


The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1  1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11


The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.


The position of High Representative will be, and has been, largely powerless, because the member states have such divergent interests that agreement will be rare, and that attempts to devise a common foreign policy for the EU are doomed. Because control of foreign policy is such a key aspect of sovereignty, it would be wrong for national governments to give this power away to the EU, which is less democratically accountable. If the EU and its High Representative do try to pressure states into common positions this may well backfire, creating strong anti-EU feeling in both national governments and public opinion. Pushing too hard for a common foreign policy and giving too much power to an unelected High Representative may instead begin to tear Europe apart. 1  1. Traynor, Ian, 'EU foreign ministers round on Lady Ashton', guardian.co.uk, 23rd May 2011, accessed 1/8/11


The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.  1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11


One should not forget that a uniting Europe in itself has been a very bold undertaking that has taken several centuries to develop, and is certainly far from being a finished product. It would be unfair to argue that the EU has made no progress in its collaboration on foreign policy since the initial establishment of the CFSP, or that the past fifteen years have seen more decay than progress on further political integration. The mixed EU reaction to the war in Iraq has long been a point of contention and criticism, yet it represents only a small and exceptional failure, in a much larger common EU foreign policy. The Enlargement Process has been by far one of the most successful elements of EU foreign and security policy, along with many other success stories with aid to third parties and management of international conflicts, for example the EU’s role in Kosovo.


Creating a common EU foreign and security policy will in fact be easier than many people suppose, because many of the 21st century’s most important issues in external relations are already part of the ‘normal’ EU policy routine; climate change, development, trade, aid and the environment, for example. Most such issues are ones on which any single member state, even one as significant as Britain, France or Germany, cannot hope to make a real global impact alone. Only by coordinating policy at EU level will the interests of member states be advanced at all. Having a High Representative to coordinate and promote this work on behalf of the Union as a whole makes sense and actually gives all member states a greater international effectiveness – the true measure of sovereignty.


government local government house supports scottish independence

It may well be the case that the model of politics at Westminster needs to be reviewed but that does not speak to the issue of independence. Furthermore, it is interesting how many of the parties’ ‘big beasts’ (influential) chose to stay at Westminster – including Alex Salmond for a term.  Equally, in the light of the credit crunch, it is questionable as to whether constantly giving away populist freebies such as free eye-tests [i] when the parliament is not responsible for raising the taxes to pay for it hardly represents good politics.  Furthermore, in its brief life, there has been no shortage of political scandal at Holyrood, including the resignation of one First Minister in disgrace over an expenses scandal.  [i] BBC News, ‘Scotland brings in free eye tests’, 31 March 2006,


Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility  Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones.  The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border. [i]  The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark.  [i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010,


Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence. [i]  The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector [ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns.  [i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011,   [ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011.


Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests  The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate.  That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees.  Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success. [i]  [i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.


There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK.  Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state.  It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster.


An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy  Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills.  Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%. [i] Independence would stretch people still further.  [i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011,


The Scottish budget runs at a surplus of about 1%, unlike the UK’s, and so the Scots are actually subsidizing their neighbours. [i] It is also important to take into account the vast amount of wealth that has fled south in the shape of North Sea oil revenue and the talent that has been sucked up by London in terms of not only work but also with the number of Scots soldiers sent to fight English wars.  Perhaps the best example of this historically is Glasgow which literally built the British Empire – mostly to English benefit – only to be discarded to some of the worst poverty in the developed world when it was no longer useful  [i] Chakrabortty, 2011


Scotland already has a distinct global profile including world-class national brands such as whiskey and salmon. Arguing that Scotland would have ‘less influence’ as an independent state is frankly absurd as, at the moment, it has none. Westminster leads in international negotiations and rarely considers Scottish interests.  Additionally, considering the damage that the UK government has managed to do to its international reputation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan putting some clear, tartan water between Edinburgh and London would seem to be quite a strong diplomatic move.


The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity  For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness.  In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity. [i]  After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit.  [i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011,


Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular  The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north.  The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10). [i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities.  Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle.  [i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011,


Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd  The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy.  It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland [i] .  [i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House.


Ignoring the fact that Opp is putting forward a version of history that is decades rather than centuries old there are other flaws. Scottish cultural traditions were actively destroyed by English dominance and continue to receive very limited support.  Linguistic traditions such as Scots and Gaelic were completely ignored and frequently suppressed.  In addition it has not been 300 years of mutual benefit as Scotland has been largely overwhelmed by its more populous neighbour. Scotland’s resources, including its intellectual ones, have been – and continued to be – effectively stolen by England.


media modern culture international africa house believes african nations should

Banning skin whitening on such a basis also requires the acceptance of the racial overtones. Some form of tan is popular in many societies of people of European ethnic origins – that is not a racial matter, it is more based on economic social perceptions (that of holidays to warmer climates). Ascribing a racial element to everything to do with skin tone is at best a lazy analysis.  Irrespective of issues of race and perceptions of ethnic origins, and its intersection with beauty standards, some people will be given advantages in life due to their appearance. Banning a certain form of cosmetic, even if it can have some racial and ethnic undertones, won’t change that.


They fuel colourism in society  Allowing the use of racial overtones – the perception that a product will bring a person towards a “white ideal” is harmful for several reasons. It could cause communities to generate a form of inferiority complex, and it reinforces the structural difference rather than aiming to minimize it. While it may sound absurd, in the US darker-skinned African Americans (and darker skinned latinos) are less well educated and have lower incomes [1] . Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, such as in Brazil, race is seen as an issue of colour and socio-economic background, not ancestry highlighting a much more obvious link between whitening creams and racism [2] .  Is it not the role of the state to reduce that discrimination, not to fuel it? Banning such creams would help prevent such harmful effects by discouraging the notion that people should aim to make themselves lighter skinned.  [1] Hunter, Margaret L., “If you’re light you’re alright: light skin color as social capital for women of color”, Gender and Society, 2002,  , p.35  [2] Telles, Edward, Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Colour in Brazil, 2004, online sample chapter,


If there is a demand for it, people want it. Not only do indigenous skin-whitening products exist, they are so widespread and popular it cannot be ascribed to a “cringe” on a small area of society.  It is wrong to consider skin whitening to just be a colonial import as if being white is all about looking like a westerner. Many cultures, particularly in Asia but also some in Africa such as Egypt, valued lighter skin tones before colonisation; such tones showed that you were a woman of leisure who did not need to toil under the hot tropical sun. [1]  Maintaining a desire to look lighter may therefore neither be an effect of a neo-colonial mind-set nor create neo-colonial business ties.  [1] Goon, Patricia, and Craven, Allison, ‘Whose Debt?: Globalisation and Whitefacing in Asia’, Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context, issue 9, August 2003,


These products are dangerous  Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] .  States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur.  [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,


Skin whitening creams often contain a wide variety of harmful ingredients – in some cases, mercury. These can cause various health problems; mercury in particular causes renal (kidney) damage, major skin problems as well as mental health issues [1] .  States, throughout the world, ban consumer products because they are harmful regardless of whether this is for consumption or for cosmetics. This is just another case where that is appropriate in order to prevent the harm to health that may occur.  [1] World Health Organization, “Mercury in skin lightening products”, WHO.int, 2011,


Monetizing colonialism  Skin whitening can be seen as an attempt to fit in with a form of a neo-colonialist mind-set; a form of cultural imperialism driven by capitalism.  These products, often sold by big international FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies feed off a neo-colonialist mind-set – one of a cultural inferiority complex. These products form part of the process of tying African people into a globalised consumer world where non-westerners feel compelled to buy western products that they don’t need. They are therefore kept in a colonial situation where they are dependent on the west both mentally and in terms of the products they buy. That is reason enough for nations that have been victims of colonialism by the Global North to take action against them.


No-one is pretending that a ban on whitening products is a solution to every social ill. What is being suggested is that these products are harmful, and that the culture they create is also potentially harmful.  A race-colour-class nexus exists – that is why the proposition is concerned about the normalization of skin bleaching.


States can and do ban products that are physically or socially harmful – that’s not illiberalism, it is common sense. It clearly does not suggest that non-white women do not have the capacity; white countries such as the USA engage in similar bans for health reasons.  Anyway, In a society with mass media and celebrity-lead marketing campaigns, do people really make entirely autonomous decisions? Consumers almost never have complete information about what they are buying. When they don’t the government has to prevent them from making mistakes that may be harmful to themselves.