Hundreds of Boston University community members flooded the aisles of the College of Arts and Sciences’ Tsai Performance Center Wednesday night for the 21st biannual Great Debate, which attempted to answer the question, “Should the United States Promote Democracy in the Islamic World?”
The topic was chosen by College of Communication professor and Great Debate chairman Bob Zelnick in order to debate an issue “of current importance and controversy.”
The debate, hosted by the Journalism Department, was modeled after Oxford and Cambridge debates, according to Zelnick. During the debate, members of the audience were not permitted to boo the speakers at any point, but they could express their opinions through the use of “hear, hear” or “shame,” both of which could be heard from every direction of the auditorium throughout the event.
The affirmative argued in favor of promoting democracy in the Muslim world, and the negative argued against it. At the end of the opposing arguments, the audience was asked to stand and “side” with either the affirmative or negative panel. The negative side overwhelmingly won the debate.
“Both sides presented valid arguments, but perhaps were arguing different aspects,” COM sophomore Jackie Enzmann said. “For me, it was hard to rationalize the two.”
Each team was made up of two professionals and one student. The lead speaker on the affirmative side was Washington Bureau Chief of Arab media outlets Al-Hayat and LBC Salameh Nematt. He was accompanied by Council of Foreign Relations member and Middle Eastern policies expert Steven Cook. Representing the university on the affirmative side was COM junior Daniel Chaparian, who, along with his panel, focused on foreign oil and freedom.
Nematt opened the debate by questioning oil supply in Middle Eastern countries, saying “we cannot sustain our status in the world if the price of oil goes up.”
“The fact that the United States is the superpower of the world puts responsibilities on [the country],” he said.
Chaparian spoke on the topic of freedom, saying “the United States will be the only reliable nation for democratic governments” as a model for other nations pursuing democracy.
“Worse than not being free is not having the hope for freedom,” he said. “It’s our good duty as U.S. citizens to spread this good fortune.”
Finishing the arguments for the affirmative side was Cook, who suggested “supporting, not imposing, democracy in the Islamic nation.”
“We think of ourselves as a beacon of democracy,” he said. “The United States must help the Arab world build true democratic institutions.”
Leading the negative panel was University of Vermont political science professor Gregory Gause. He was joined by University of Chicago political science professor John Mearsheimer and second-year School of Law student Karin Esposito. Their main points included terrorism and nuclear weapons.
Gause began the remarks for the negative, saying there is “no relationship between the type of government of a country and the terror it produces.”
Esposito followed, saying that the United States “clumsily started a war on terrorism with rhetoric and slogans.”
“How can we promote democracy in the Islamic world if we don’t get involved with the details?” she asked.
Mearsheimer said there is a “greater incentive than ever to use nuclear weapons.”
“Two thirds of states with nuclear weapons are democracies,” he said.
Some students said the panels spent much of the debate focused on the word “promote.”
“I thought it was interesting to see that academics, journalists and students conceive ‘promote’ in a different way,” Harvard College junior Matt Conroy said.
Many students said their opinions were affected by the points brought up during the two-hour debate.
“Prior to the debate, my stance was that the U.S. should not promote democracy,” School of Management junior Tara Glick said. “I’m definitely more open to democracy of the Islamic State [after listening to the debate].”
