PM Bangladesh UADC 2020 Round 6 – This House regrets Juan Guaidó’s decision to boycott the Venezuelan elections

(Prime Minister) Bangladesh UADC 2020 Round 6

Video Source: YouTube

Three things coming from the prime minister.

Firstly about why representation is likely to be done in an equitable fashion at least the extent to which it is going to be effective.

Secondly,  why the counterfactual which is that Maduro has absolute control is really bad.

Thirdly, i’m going to be talking about why participation matters especially because the only matter way upon which you’re able to gain proof that the election is rigged is through the empirical fact that you’ve gone through that election and that there have been results that are different from the kinds of things that has been done right, and I think that this is an important mechanism in order to establish the ways upon which the venezuelan people are able to lift themselves and go against their government that is all increasingly becoming authoritarian.

First argument

Firstly about why representation is good inherently.

I first want to put a framing in the general context that I think Maduro is unlikely to cover it up to the extent to which is going to be like 99% Maduro, 1% for the opposition party and this is somewhat going to be equitable, we think in our fashion. WHy is this the case? Three mechanisms.

The first is because there’s speculation like doubt that  relation is going to be rigged in the first place (even if regardless dia boycott ato ga, people will question Maduro because he already has an image of a dictator and undemocratic).. That is because there’s been you know, support or like kinds of claims made that the election is going to be rigged. It probably means that Maduro has incentive to prove them wrong to say that this is probably not going to be something that’s incredibly obvious right.

But secondly because Maduro doesn’t want the public to get angry to the extent to which there it is preventable right that is that I think it’s going to be obviously if it’s 99 percent, one percent it’s going to be a severe case that’s going to uplift or kind of you know, it’s going to really anger the public and I think that’s a question of extent because it’s very very clear it’s going to happen. Whereas I think a 70% 30% would not be having that as much done right.

But thirdly because I think, if it looks equitable, it boosts the legitimacy of that redeeming question, this is also a flip side of the argument, which is that I think is unlikely, this is going to change things as much right. Why is representation then?

A good thing inherently, two reasons.

1. First, because you’re able to delay things and you can reject policies. At the very best in our case, you’re able to reject certain policies that the current government does in order to oppress the event of civilians, under the status quo right. And even if it doesn’t, it was able to significantly delay the implementation of things or policies that are coming up or the initial thinkings or initial thought process upon which those policies are going to be manifesting. And this is particularly important right because we think that the Maduro regime currently, does things to the port, like cutting off the benefits through having hyperinflation by having and giving a good currency political allies and not having that hyperinflation means that they’re able to gain profit off of it which significantly benefits the allies of Maduro, but significantly harm the poor for instance. And I think that they’re able to criticize their government if they have representation for being corrupt which we things does two things:

1. One, it obstructs policies directly because it’s able to call out its government on the policies
2. But two, we think it’s able to inform the public as well, which means that they’re unlikely to get support

All of these things are important in order to delay their processes, and that’s why representations inherent good and of itself.

1. But secondly, because of media coverage right. We think that if you have media coverage, that means that you have confrontation or that it is broadcasted on media level if it is how if you have representation rights. It further increases chances of that harm that is going to occur and we think that’s an incredibly important mechanism to rally or to make these people understand that there is a public conflict or to drive them and try to specify how they should be acting in those areas.

Second argument

Secondly, why does Maduro  have absolute control or on the encounter factual why is that really really bad. Absolute unquestion control, it’s because of three reasons.

The first is because there’s no absolute, no check and balance system which is the flip side of the argument that I’ve provided you just now. They have absolute control and there’s no one who is able to challenge that legalization, that means there’s no delays and no check. That means that they’re able to pass things quickly, and we think that’s incredibly harmful in an era upon which these people are currently suffering and it means the policies that are going to construct the poor people, there’s going to be things that are going to be done very quickly.

But secondly because he’s able to revise the constitution because of the very fact that they have lots of control. Oftentimes in most countries, in order to change the constitution, require a majority of the vote, but so far, you have no absolute opposition representation, means that those things are likely to be able to happen furthermore and this is what dictators do all the time in order to legitimize these things and we think that leads to the amendment of constitutions which give further control for Maduro to consolidate his power. Those things are incredibly harmful for things in the long term because it’s also very hard to reverse, right.

But thirdly because of violent crackdowns on dissidents. And we think that this is also important in a piece of framing, that it’s providing is because that Maduro is able to claim the absolute benefits of getting represented 100%, at least on a upfront, means that the party is able to then frame that they have the legitimate rights in order to govern that country right. That means that they’re able to crack down on dissidents who are like going against the peace of that country. And we think that those things are incredibly harmful for the stability of that country and of itself because at least you gave them a frame upon which you’re able to justify. Whereas I think on the counter character on our side of the house, if they have some kind of representation, then obviously those things cannot be done on such a level because those people can be associated with the opposition party at the end of the day.

Before we move on to the third point about why participation matters, sure (POI).

You realistically think that in any world, policies in Venezuela passed through democratic processes in parliament and discussions.

I think the question of the comparative. Because I think that it’s quite hard if you have no leader whatsoever, if you have no person whatsoever, you’re unable to voice any of those things, and I think that’s incredibly important, and that those are the new ones that I think I clearly told you in the first point thoroughly about this partici[pation matters point right.

Third argument

How do you know if the election is rigged empirically though. But I think you know that an election is rigged because you participated in that event right. That is because the ways upon which you’re able to assess whether religion is rigged through exit polls and based on statistics to reveal it was rigged in the first place right. You can only confirm it afterwards if it’s like the result different from the people who voted for you, like if you have other parties or third parties intervening and to know that those things happened right. And that is the proof that you require to be able to legitimately take action, and to comfort that this was something that was rigged right. And we think that this is incredibly important for two reasons.

The first is because you were able to undermine Maduro in the first place right. That means that Maduro is probably found to have rigged the election, then obviously that justified a lot of social riots or the protestors on the streets that are currently happening right. Anything that at least gives Maduro incentive to pander to the poor or at least expand to try and consolidate those people as well to lessen the amount of harm that he’s doing, and we think it’s far likely that this is going to happen in so far as there’s active proof that this is something that has happened right. So we think that’s likely to increase representation in the future because he doesn’t want to do those things again, and we think that is something that is also going to be touched on.

But secondly because of international support it has increased. We think that there’s going to be a lot of pressure from international organizations, but  also from the collection of nations like the European Union from the democratization of what is going on. That can only be achieved so far as if the actual proof that the election was rigged. And this is also quite important because you’re able to do many things on the governmental level or the intercontinental level, you’re able to pressure Maduro or give those benefits.

Anyways, for all of those reasons, that’s to start what we propose.