The discussion on the resolution, “This house believes that United States Foreign Policy should prioritize stability over democracy in the Middle East,” ranged from an abstract defense of democratic institutions to a focused recounting of events in Egypt that unfolded hours before the debate began.
The 20 gathered students found both sides equally convincing, voting in equal strength in support of the two sides.
Senate President Matt Butler ’12 cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of the Clios, who supported the resolution.
Butler is also a member of The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board.
Clio member Rashad Badr ’10, a fellow with Princeton’s Scholars in the Nation’s Service Initiative, argued alongside his partner Matthew Sanyour ’11 that democracy must only come to the Middle East when the region is ready for it.
“No American wants to deny the Arab people democracy,” Badr said, adding that “democracy in the Middle East cannot exist without first establishing stability.”
Badr also stressed the need for democracy to be organic and locally-led, eschewing the imposition of American ideals in the Middle East.
“The Arab people have a strong desire for democracy. They do not, however, have a strong desire for American democracy,” he explained.
The Whigs, led by fellow Scholar in the Nation’s Service William Wagner ’10 and Zayn Siddique ’11, said that they felt that democracy in the Middle East was in the long-term foreign policy interests of the United States.
Siddique is also a member of the ‘Prince’ Editorial Board.
“It’s clear that extremist Islamic groups have come to power because people are looking for an outlet to express frustration with the status quo,” Wagner said.
He added that democracy is critical to providing stability in the region.

“There is no better way for a leader to feel secure than by achieving the stamp of approval of their people,” he said.
Both the Whigs and the Clios claimed that their value — either stability or democracy — was a precursor to the other, leading some in the audience to question whether the dichotomy was a false one.
In the end, however, Whig-Clio president Jay Parikh ’12 said that he thought the debate was unique in that it featured University graduate students in the SINSI program on both sides of the argument, making the debate more “intellectual.”
“They had both been to the Middle East; both had worked in the region and had on-the-ground experience,” Parikh explained.
“I think we really got to the heart of what it means to be a stable democracy in the Middle East,” he added.