Reassessing Democracy: Unveiling the Illusions and Imperfections

 

First, start with the quote from Lincoln about democracy: "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people". Now let's start the analysis "of the people". This simple term means that people are the most important thing in a democratic country, but in real life, it is not true. After people select the government, the people who rule the country don't think about the people anymore. They didn't take any necessary steps for the welfare of the country unless there was a profit for them in that welfare work. Now let's move on to "by the people". Is democracy really a government of the people? Obviously, it's not; it is money that talks most and rules the country. In the real world, only wealthy people hold positions in government because poor people have no interest in politics. After all, they are poor, and that's why their first priority is somehow living a normal life by earning money. Now the last one is "for the people". I already analyzed that in the real world, democracy is not for the people. It's always for wealthy people. They rule the country and govern it as they like, and the poor people have no interest. Lastly, we can say that Lincoln's quotes implement that democracy is a myth for the world; no country has true democracy.

Moreover, many of you will think that if the poor are oppressed, they can easily vote against the wealthy and make them not rule. But it can never happen. In the real world, " vote right" is like a product. in the real world. The wealthy people always buy the votes of the poor by giving them some money, and the poor people also sell their votes because they need the money most and have no alternative way.

Now move on to another flaw in democracy. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". This metaphor refers to an unmitigated democracy in which the majority rules. Pure democracy is "majority rule," whether the majority is ethical or moral. In a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want X, X is harmful to the other 49%—too bad for the 49%. The majority is not always right or moral, and just because something is democratic does not mean it is fair.

Once Aristotle said, "Democracy Is the Rule of Fools". Democracy seeks emotion, not conscience. If a person wants to rule in a democratic country, he doesn't need to be educated; the most important thing is whether he is famous or not. That's why, in a democratic country, uneducated and unaware people sometimes rule the country; they cannot take the necessary steps for the welfare of the country because they do not know how to solve any problem. That's why sometimes it makes the country's situation even worse. On the other hand, if an educated and aware person of politics rules the country, he can take the most possible steps for the welfare of the country. But in a democratic system, sometimes it cannot happen because an educated person does not make false promises and gain popularity like an uneducated person.

At last, I want to ask you a question: can we implement democracy in Africa? Obviously not; political instability and a terrible economic situation will make it worse. It is my personal belief that to reach democracy, you need authoritarianism to bring peace, stability, and economic strength back. Once those things are all safely back, the process of democracy can begin