Honourable Judges and worthy opponents, today, team opposition is

going AGAINST the motion, This house believes that the World Bank
Group should adopt a one-country-one-vote system.

As the first speaker, I will be introducing the motion and presenting my

arguments on the motion.
The second speaker will refute and add arguments to support the case
and the third speaker will sum up our team’s case and refute.

Let us begin with logically defining the motion,

The World Bank Group is a family of five international organisations that
make leveraged loans to developing countries.

The arguments that will be presented by house Opposition are-

- One country one vote system will reduce the efficiency of the
organisation due to minimal availability of resources.
- The one country one vote system would give developing countries
too much power.
- The THIRD argument against this motion is that adopting a one country one vote
system would make it more difficult to reach consensus on important issues.

A one country one vote system proposes the need for every country to
have an equal right to vote, and voting rights in international
organisations. Motion proposes to discard the existing weighted voting
system of the world bank institutions and adopt a voting trial with a 1
country 1 vote system. Currently, the World Bank's voting system gives
more votes to wealthier countries. This reflects the fact that wealthier
countries contribute more to the World Bank and have a greater stake in
its success. A one country, one vote system would give each country an
equal vote, regardless of its wealth. This would make it more difficult to
build consensus on important decisions, and could lead to gridlock.

With this I move to the first argument proposed by team opposition: One
country one vote system will reduce the efficiency of the organisation
due to minimal availability of resources. one country, one vote system
would give too much power to small, poor countries. These countries
often have weak institutions and lack the expertise necessary to make
sound economic decisions. Giving them more power in the World Bank
would increase the risk of bad loans and investments, which would
ultimately harm the poorest people in the world.

In Niger, only 43% of the population has access to clean water.

In Ethiopia, only 16% of the population has access to electricity.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, only 13% of the population has
access to paved roads.

The lack of resources in developing countries is a complex problem with

no easy solutions. The World Bank's projects and programs are
designed to help developing countries achieve their development goals,
such as reducing poverty, improving education and healthcare, and
developing infrastructure. These projects can be very expensive, and the
World Bank relies on a variety of resources to finance them. The World
Bank's main sources of resources are:

Borrowed funds: The World Bank borrows money from its member
countries and other international financial institutions. This money is then
lent to developing countries at low interest rates or no interest at all.

Repayment of loans: Developing countries repay the loans they receive

from the World Bank over time. These repayments are used to finance
new loans to other developing countries.

Grants: The World Bank receives grants from donor countries and
foundations. These grants are used to support a variety of projects, such
as education, healthcare, and environmental protection.

Membership fees: All of the World Bank's member countries pay an

annual membership fee. These fees help to cover the World Bank's
operating costs.

Now the question is will developed and underdeveloped countries be

able to contribute in these various parameters without making it a burden
for itself? Because if they are competing for equality in terms of voting
then it must be in terms of contributions as well because the countries
that have earned their right to vote have seen great hardships on their
way to achieve such a position, and by granting this right to the countries
who would fail to contribute equally would be unfair with the deserving
countries as they would only be used to take money and in return won’t
be left with special powers.

The House Opposition firmly believes that the one country one vote
system might sound very fair to some people for giving an opportunity to
the developing nations, but at the same it’s being unjust with the
countries who contribute the most towards the development of these
countries and above all It will also prove to be a burden to the
developing nations as it’s not easy for them to contribute financially to
these organisations for funds and loans. The lack of resources will be a
major drawback of these nations and the whole soul point of this
organisation is the development of the world by the smart use of
available finance, Thus it offers higher priority and power to financially
strong members, which is not a wrong practice as they are dependent on
them for funds which ultimately help to reduce the poverty and other
trivial issues of the underdeveloped nations.

For the above stated points we absolutely oppose this motion and
believe that a one country one vote system should definitely not be
adopted. We urge the house to vote against this motion.

With that I rest my case.