A point of contention: Democracy is the surest way to safeguard human right long term in a nation. Historically speaking, there isn't even a second place when it comes to other forms of rule operating effectively on the necessary timescales.
Promoting democracy is promoting human rights the same way promoting exercise is promoting health and well-being.
Democracy is far from the surest way to safeguard human rights. It's just a game of definitions that whenever a democracy commits atrocities, it retroactively stops being a democracy, even when the people are on board with it.
Or maybe they do actually stop being democracies before the bad stuff happens? Care to share an example?
Literally all of the countries that have had continuous constitutions + liberal human rights (that is a long running government that hasn't violated its citizens rights) are democracies right now.
Right, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You're defining it as "a long-running government that hasn't violated its citizens rights". By this definition, you could exclude the United States as one of its minorities wasn't able to vote until recently. You're begging the question.
That was a bad definition because I was painting with broad strokes an hard lines.
Maybe this is a better way to phrase my statement: The countries that treat their constituents best are all democracies. Additionally, they tend to promote or retain rights better over time.
The US, and most of Europe are great examples. It's not perfect correlation, likewise people drop dead running marathons sometimes, but the correlation between democracy and human well-being is very strong.
You'd have to define "democracy" in some meaningful way. Is Russia a democracy? Was Iraq under Saddam Hussein a democracy? Elections were held, he won about 100% of the vote. Is the US a democracy? The winner of the presidential elections doesn't always get the most votes, and is in practice obliged to be a member of one of only two parties.
I think this might be true. But the USA is not simply a democracy. It’s a liberal hegemony, and that brings a whole set of other problems.
I believe that an objective look at US foreign policy shows that US always looks out for #1 (itself).
It helped overthrow an elected socialist leader in Chile in 1973. It made up reasons to invade Iraq. It defended Kuwait, a monarchy. It interferes in other countries all the time. When the dictator supports US interests, it leaves them be. When a democratically elected government resists them, they try to tear it down.
So I think what you mean is democracy is good for advancing human rights for CITIZENS of that country. The empirical evidence is not super strong for advancing human rights in general.
A point of contention: Democracy is the surest way to safeguard human right long term in a nation. Historically speaking, there isn't even a second place when it comes to other forms of rule operating effectively on the necessary timescales.
Promoting democracy is promoting human rights the same way promoting exercise is promoting health and well-being.