A.

Link: Democracy Assistance

The plan is a gift intended to secure the power of the U.S. by ensuring that
marginalized groups are perpetually indebted in a vicious cycle of reciprocity.
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce A., Christopher R., professor of @ the University
of North Carolina, associate professor of criminology @ the University of West
Georgia, Possibility of Democratic Justice and the "Gift" of the Majority : On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice) WC

the gift provides an insightful metaphor with which to analyze the current state of sociopolitical affairs
subjugated populations. The advances made by the state regarding minority citizen
groups, particularly within the context of employment (economic) and education (social), are gifts.13 Legislative enactments
designed to foster the growth of equality and thereby democratic justice (i.e., standards of what is "right and fair") produce hegemonic
effects constitutive only of narcissistic power.14 These effects are eclipsed by counterfeit, although impactful, offerings. The omnipotence of
majority sensibilities in Western cultures, particularly in the United States, has produced an exploitative and nongiving existence for under- and nonrepresented citizen groups . Despite the
many rights-based movements during the past several decades that have ostensibly conferred to minorities such
abstract gifts as liberty, equality, and freedom, there remains an enduring wall dividing the
masses from those on whom such awards are bestowed. This fortified separation is most prominent in the (silent) reverberations of state and federal legislative reforms.15 Relying on Derrida's
(1991,1992,1997) critique, we can regard such statutory reform initiatives as gifts; that is, they are
something given to non-majority citizens by those in power; they are tokens and emblems of
empowerment in the process of equality and in the name of democratic justice. The majority is
presenting something to marginalized groups, something that the giver holds in its entirety:
power.16 The giver or presenter of such power will never, out of capitalistic conceit and greed,
completely surrender that which it owns. It is preposterous to believe that the narcissistic
majority would give up so much as to threaten what they own; that is, to surrender their hospice and community while
authentically welcoming in the other as stranger. This form of open-ended generosity has yet to occur in Western
democratic societies and, perhaps, it never will. Thus, it is logical to assume that, although unconscious in some respects, the efforts
of the majority are parsimonious and intended to secure (or accessorize) their own power.17 The following two
means by which a gift enables self-empowerment were already alluded to by Derrida (1997): (a) the giver (i.e., the sender or majority) either
bestows to show off his or her power or (b) gives to mobilize a cycle of reciprocation in which
the receiver (i.e., the minority) will be indebted. s
Derrida's explication of
regarding traditionally

US democracy assistance produces an unequal relationship between the donor and the US.
Democracy assistance will build countries in the US image.
Newberg & Carothers, senior associates at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace,
1996 (Paula R. & Thomas, World Policy Journal, "Aiding - And Defining Democracy", p. 98-99)
There are many ways that democracy assistance differs from the more customary forms of U.S.
foreign assistance to the Third World. Perhaps the element that distinguishes democracy assistance most clearly
from traditional U.S. foreign aid is the relationships it establishes between a donor government and
the citizens of the recipient countries. In the past, bilateral assistance created relationships between governments, although the fact and nature of aid had profound
consequences on recipient societies.

Democracy assistance, as conceived by the U.S. government, not only affects state institutions but is
designed to help transform the relationships between the citizens of recipient states and their own
governments. Democracy assistance not only establishes an unequal relationship between donor and
recipient but assumes a kind of political intervention by donors that has rarely been undertaken so
explicitly by a donor government. Democracy assistance therefore assumes a risk that infrastructure support does not: dams do not talk back; people do.
Each of these concepts about aid assumes different ideas about the content and processes of

democracy. Equally, if not more important, they represent worldviews articulated by donors rather
than aid recipients, for whom the textures of political, social, and economic life are denser and
sometimes less amenable to distinct policy choices. For example, while Americans keenly support the idea of a multiparty system in the Czech Republic,
Czech voters (and nongovernmental organization and party organizers) have been far more concerned about the ways that successful parties consolidate power and the new forms of power -- particular financial -that they now embody. The differences between parties as institutions for mobilizing voters and representing interests, and parties as institutions through which power is distributed, is far clearer to Czech political
actors than to American donors.

B. Impact

Impacts: Case Turn

The ruse of the gift is that is produces the opposite of its aim
Arrigo and Williams 2k (Bruce A., Christopher R., professor of @ the University
of North Carolina, associate professor of criminology @ the University of West
Georgia, Possibility of Democratic Justice and the "Gift" of the Majority : On
Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for Equality Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice) WC

the gift and justice. Justice cannot appear as such; it cannot be calculated as in the law or other
tangible commodities (Derrida, 1997). Although Derrida acknowledges that we must attempt to calculate, there is a point beyond which calculation must fail and we must
recognize that no amount of estimation can adequately assign justice (Derrida, 1997). For equality (like the "gift beyond
This is the relationship between

to be possible, we must go beyond any imaginable, knowable notion. This is

why the gift and justice are conceptually (im)possible (Desilva Wijeyeratne, 1998). They serve a necessary purpose in society; however, they
represent something to always strive for, something that mobilizes our desire. If the impossible was
possible, we would stop trying and desire would die. Justice, and thus democracy, is an appeal for the gift. As Derrida (1992) notes, "this 'idea of justice'
exchange and distribution"; Derrida, 1992, p. 7)

seems to be irreducible in its affirmative character, in its demand of gift without exchange, without circulation, without recognition of gratitude, without economic circularity, without calculation and

the use of the gift as a

transaction in the name of equality, and equality in the name of justice and democracy, is truly (un)just,
(un)democratic, and (in)equitable. The gift is a calculated, majoritarian endeavor toward illusive equality. Equality beyond such a conscious effort (i.e., where the
without rules, without reason and without rationality" (p. 25). The gift (of equality), like justice and democracy, is an aporia, an (im)possibility. Thus,

illusion is displaced) is open-ended and absent of any obligatory reciprocation. As Caputo (1997) notes, "justice is the welcome given to the other in which I do not. . . have anything up my sleeve" (p.
149). With this formula of equality and justice in mind, one may still speculate on the law's relationship to the gift. But again, the law as a commodity, as a thing to be transacted, eliminates its prospects
as something to be given

Oppression is a cycle draining power from the oppressed and giving it right back
to the powerful
Khan, professor of law @ Washburn, 1994 (Ali, Howard Law Journal, Lessons
From Malcolm X: Freedom by Any Means Necessary, 38 How. L.J. 79, lexis)

In addition to disabling the disadvantaged, oppression simultaneously empowers the

oppressor. It transfers power from the oppressed to the oppressor, establishing a relationship
of direct subjugation. Under slavery, one of the most extreme forms of oppression, the labor of
the enslaved is directly consigned to the master. The powerlessness of the enslaved is indeed
the power of the master. n37 On a larger social scale, oppression provides a conduit to drain
power from the op- [*89] pressed to building the economic, social, and political strength of
the oppressors.

C. Alt:
Vote for continuing without the assistance of the oppressor. The oppressed should be
affirmed in challenging their oppression by any means necessary
Khan, professor of law @ Washburn, 1994 (Ali, Howard Law Journal, Lessons From Malcolm X: Freedom by Any Means Necessary, 38 How. L.J. 79, lexis)
The concept of by any means necessary unravels the normative pretense of the oppressive system
and rejects the moral claims of those who argue that law and order must remain a supreme value
even in the most unjust system. When a system refuses to recognize the fundamental rights of a
group of citizens, the moral imperative to challenge the oppressor gains momentum and
arguments for the maintenance of law and order lose merit. If obedience to the system does not
change the condition of subjugation, a new attitude among the subjugated begins to develop. The
yearning to break away from oppression illicits a militant and defiant attitude against those who
deny even such fundamental rights.

D. Role of the Ballot

Reject colonialism within educational settings.
The only way to do this is by challenging and examining colonialism in an
educational space such as debate. The role of the judge within the debate
round is to be an educator and to solve for the lapse of discussion of
colonialism within education.
Dei [Anti-Colonialism and Education 2006]
The anti-colonial classroom must always be a de-colonizing space. This is both a[n] physical and
intellectual imperative, affecting both the set up and use of space, as well as the delivery of the
instructor's program. The teacher[s], as well as the students, should address the meanings of knowledge

the teacher is responsible for

presenting knowledge as counters to hegemonic power The first step
in doing so lies within the exchange of knowledge, i.e. the learning process.
and learning. Within anti-colonial education,

The teacher/facilitator must not be understood (by herself/himself or by the students) as "in charge" of the
knowledge. While she/he may be the custodian of certain knowledges, this by no means translates into

understanding of decolonization as
[is] a process wherein we depart from our customary paradigms, and
reject the ways in which our reality and experience have been
shaped by hegemonic cultural discourse[.], we can arrive at a critical
learning moment The most dangerous of all delusions is to think that your social reality is the
only reality worth talking about. To do so is to [which] engage[s] in a colonizing
mental exercise, characterized by profound intellectual arrogance.
This is the problem with the Eurocentric epistemology that
characterizes so much [in] dominant curricula. The subversion thereof is thus an
ownership thereof. Working with bell hooks' (1994)

act of mental liberation. To truly embrace and work with a multicentric framework requires axiological,
ontological and epistemological de-centering. We must return here to the notion and necessity of humility
in the teaching and learning processes.

AND the judge needs to teach resistance to the colonial mindset by

encouraging discussion and rejecting the colonial mindset.
Dei [Anti-Colonialism and Education 2006]

An anti-colonial pedagogy must also teach

resistance. Many educational settings devote a great deal of energy to stemming,
discrediting and denying student resistance. It is important to question the necessity of such
repression. Discipline and punishment too easily serve as entry points for racist, gendered and
otherwise oppressive practices, which culminate in larger issues of student disengagement
What purposes underlie the control mechanisms used by teachers and schools?

Resistance is a multifaceted practice that, while

quite individualistic at times, can be taught from critical
listening, reading and analytical skills to
methods of protest, revolution and
reclamation, teaching resistance is crucial lo
anti-colonial education. One way to start such process is to recognize
the ways in which students already do and have resisted, and wherever possible, to respond
with praise and reward, instead of scorn and rejection. This is a challenge to the many
teachers whose authority rests upon such control. As educators, our authenticity as leaders to
the class must not stem from the power to punish or flunk our students. We must find the
courage to be wrong, lo be open, to be considerate of the student as an equal, and to be
humble in our instruction/facilitation

Contention level:

Combined Economic + Political Approaches Fail

These two approaches are incompatible
Jahn 12 [(Beate, Professor of International Relations at the University of
Sussex) Rethinking democracy promotion Review of International Studies
(2012), 38, 685705] AT
The substantive differences between these two approaches provide the basis
for different, and at times contradictory, democracy promotion policies,
either focusing on support for economic development which is then
expected to lead to political democratisation as in the case of
modernisation policies, or providing support for democratic political
institutions as in the post-Cold War period. Yet, support for economic
development in the form of privatisation and marketisation as
suggested by the model of successful Western liberal democracies may
well run counter to the interests of the majority of the population
and thus undermine political democratisation. Meanwhile, support for
democratic political institutions may well stand in the way of moves towards
privatisation and marketisation. There exists, then, clearly a tension between
the political and economic dynamics of liberal democracy which is not
resolved in either of the existing approaches. And it is arguably this tension
that leads academics as well as practicioners to separate the economic and
political dimensions of liberal democracy promotion even while their
combination is widely recognised as providing the most conducive conditions
for democratisation. Hence, theories as well as policies tend to prioritise one
or the other; the different policies are pursued at different times introducing
phases of democracy promotion; they are undertaken by different actors.
While governments generally pursue both policies, different
ministries focus on different policies; while NGOs in general cover
both dimensions, particular NGOs tend to focus on one or the other;
while international organisations pursue both policies, different
institutions will pursue different policies (the UN focusing on the
political, the IMF on the economic, and so on). The tension between
these two core dimensions of liberal democracy thus remains
unresolved in academic as well as political practice. And yet,
historically this tension has been sufficiently resolved to lead to the
establishment of some mature and stable liberal democracies. And it
is a thorough engagement with John Lockes reflections, I will show in the
next section, that provides an answer to the question: how?

DPT
Civil Society
Framework Wrap Up