Democracy and the Middle Ages
There was, of course, no Democracy in the Europe of the Middle Ages. As a matter of fact Democracy was all but dead since the fall of Athens and the demise of the ancient Greek civilization in former times. Peter Landry wrote that, “Grecian democracy, however, such as it was, was soon covered over with the murk of the middle ages.”
But the ideals of Democracy began to be rekindled in the Middle Ages when the Italian city states revived Republicanism which was once practiced in ancient times. It was during the era of the Middle Ages that, with the consolidation of feudalism, the Italian city states emerged and established Republicanism as their systems of government.
The Italian city states were fighting for self-government in a bid to throw off the yoke of the servitude to the Church and the kings of medieval Europe.
Republicanism in the Middle Ages was, because of its insidious anti-Church and regicidal undertones, staunchly fought for the institution of self-government whereby the government of the city states are not answerable to either the Church or the king but are directly answerable to the very citizens of the city states.
But then the self-government struggles of the Republican city states of medieval Europe only led to a re-emergence of democratic ideology in the Middle Ages. Bo Li wrote, “The possibility and institutions of self-government is at the core of the classical republicanism, and the basic idea of sovereignty of people is an important contribution of republicanism to the modern theory of democracy.”
The Enlightenment and Democracy
It was during the Enlightenment era that the revival of democratic values begun all over again in Europe. The Enlightenment was all about a sociological rebellion against established values, especially the religious culture of the Church and the political and governmental traditions of the State.
Peter Landry wrote that, “Out of the Dark Ages, in gradual awaking stirs, came the Age of Reason. The enlightenment was fully established and growing vigorously by the eighteenth century. As the shackles of oppression, so firmly clamped on during the middle ages, became loose, men sought to apply reason to religion, politics, morality, and social life.”
Democracy and the Renaissance
The rise of modern Democracy may be rightly traced to the emergence of the Renaissance movement in the Europe of the post-Dark Ages era. It was the Renaissance man that initiated the return to paganism and anarchy – the two silent traits that characterize Democracy.
The Renaissance was more or less a rebellion against the present and authority. Robin Woodson explained this at length:
“There were three major factors in the flowering of the renaissance and the return of democratic ideals: the Black Plague, which killed half of Europe and destabilized the feudal system; the Crusades, which exposed Europeans to the prosperous, civilized and non-Christian peoples of the east; and the revival of study of the classic Pagan authors.
“After the turn of the first millennium when Jesus still hadn’t returned, educated men began to doubt the immediate return of Christ. With the advent of the Black Death which killed half of Europe in the 14th century, scholars began to doubt the providence of God and began to study in earnest the physical and psychological nature of man.
“The crusades to free the Holy Lands from the infidel Moslems brought the barbarous and backwards Europeans into contact with the refined and sophisticated cultures of the east. Although the Crusades at first brought prestige and power to the Catholic church, they soon degenerated into random slaughter of enemies of the Pope. But the damage was done. Freed from their narrow vision of the power and prestige of the church, European nobles began to distance themselves from the spiritual authority of the Pope. To finance the Crusades, many noble families sold town charters to free the town from obligations to the nobles. Many Serfs also bought their freedom. This was the beginning of the end of feudalism and the beginning of an educated and cultured middle class. This middle class began to demand individual rights and freedoms, freedom from the tyranny of the church and freedom from the tyranny of the Nobles.
“The seat of the Holy See was littered by the remnants of the grandeur of classical Rome. Living among the ruins of a once great civilization and disillusioned by the debaucheries of the Popes and the frequent slaughters of Christians, Jews and Moslems committed or sanctioned by the church, scholars turned to Pagan authors for inspiration and wisdom.”
Republicanism in the Renaissance era also contributed in no small measure to the growth of the revival of the Theory of Democracy in the era of the Renaissance.
Democracy in England
Britain became another major centre stage in the story of the development of Democracy beginning during and to the immediate Renaissance era.
John Roberts wrote that, “In fact, it was only when the prospect of mass starvation took hold on the working classes, that they were occasionally impelled to protest against the injustice and inequity of the Feudal system. Such a protest led to the Peasant’s Revolt in England in the 15th Century, under Perkin Warbeck, which resulted in a march on London. However, the peasants were easily induced to desist from their rebellious behaviour and dissuaded from further revolt, by the slaughter of their leaders, who had been given an assurance that their grievances would be considered.”
John Roberts noted, in reference to the Parliamentary Government of England, that “Here again, true democracy was never established. Male adult suffrage was not granted to the working classes until the 1870s and to women, after a courageous fight by the suffragette movement, in the 1920’s. Even today, it might perhaps be averred that universal democratic suffrage is unattainable, particularly in view of the development of modern organs of mass media.”
King Charles I
John Roberts wrote, “The 17th Century revolution in Britain was generated by the insistence of Charles the First on his “Divine Right”, whereby he could override the wishes of the people, at will. It is an amazing thing that the participants in the rebellion were not levellers or socialists, as we understand them today, but members of the minor aristocracy and influential merchant classes. What started as a legitimate protest, resulted in a blood bath and universal misery for the Nation. It ended with no redress for the lower classes and the eventual restoration of the Monarchy under the degenerate and lecherous Charles the Second. In the aggregate, the English Revolution is seen as a step forward on the march towards democracy, as we know it today.”
Democracy and the French Revolution
The French Revolution occupies a central position in the history of Democracy. But the fact remains that in terms of actual results the French Revolution was a total failure as far as the establishment of a Democracy was concerned. John Roberts observed that, “The destructive revolution in France, which commenced in l789, did little more than air the grievances of the masses, who inflicted a gruesome revenge upon their tormentors. Within a generation or two, France, for all practical purposes, had reverted to the previous degenerate Monarchistic system.”
In 1789 the Parisian masses took to the streets, stormed the Bastille and initiated a social rebellion that ultimately resulted in the fall of the Ancien Regime.
In the course of events the masses established themselves as the rulers of France. The original plan of the revolutionaries was to set up a democratic government of the ‘Rule by the ruled’ whereby the masses will rule through a government of the people.
But no sooner had they executed the Queen and the King than they immediately realized that the government by the people is practically impossible.
In the end they had to establish a Republic which is a partial admixture of Democracy and Oligarchy.
If anything at all the French Revolution did, in the long run, resulted in anti-democratic consequences. John Roberts wrote that, “In Britain, where the condition of the masses was only slightly improved from that of the French working classes, a similar but slightly less bloody revolution might have achieved results in the shape of a social upheaval. However, it did not occur: the ruling class; being forewarned by the events in France; steps were taken in the limited Reform Legislation of 1832 to improve the lot of the working classes. As a result, land tenure remains unchanged and class privilege, based on the principle of aristocratic superiority, still maintains a precarious sway.”
But the French Revolution also opened a floodgate of possibilities for the spread of democratic ideas and values throughout the West and the gradual entrenchment of democratic cultures in the polities of Western civilization.
It is in this regard, in the context of the French Revolution facilitating the propagation of Democracy, that Edmund Burke condemned the French Revolution as the beginning of the end of Western civilization. Edmund Burke was of the conviction that democracy is more or less equal to Anarchy and that the advent of democracy signaled the end of Western civilization.
Democracy and the Bolshevik Revolution
Another notorious historical example of this type was the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution of Russia. Initially the communists had promised to establish a democratic government of the masses, the Proletariat, whereby the peasant masses of Russia will, en masse, become the rulers of Russia. It was on the premise of this promise that the serf masses of Russia supported the Bolsheviks who used Marxist theories to convince everybody that the government by the masses is a possibility.
But no sooner had the Bolshevik Revolution taken place and a new socialist government ostensibly established for the masses than Lenin came up with an anti-democratic, anti-Marxist regime of oligarchy whereby only Lenin and his cliché of Bolshevik radicals became the new rulers of Russia.
Lenin had to invent an hybrid of an ideology, called ‘Marxist-Leninism’ to explain that, for very practical reasons, they couldn’t let the masses rule Russia. Of course Lenin admitted that the ideal government by the people is practically impossible.
Democracy and the Industrial Revolution
America is not a Democracy
America was not meant to be, never was and has never been a Democracy. Wolf 1 wrote, “Perhaps the greatest and most enduring myths about America is that it is a democracy. Despite everything you hear on the news, all too often in the classroom, and in person-on-the-street interviews, we are not a democracy. We are a republic.”
The Founding Fathers of America were well aware of the infeasibility of Democracy – that is why they recommended and established America as a republic. Weebies wrote that, “The founders of America held scorn for democracy, and never intended that American government be a democracy, but a constitutional republic. They seemed to share the same views that most detractors of democracy hold, that democracy is mob rule, has no respect for individual or property rights, and is a license to plunder.”
Levi Anthony wrote that the Founding Fathers realized that it is pragmatically impossible to practice Direct Democracy in large and populous nations like America. They therefore opted for the idea of Representative Democracy which is by and large the same system of government that Plato had earlier on referred to as the Republic.
Scott London wrote that, “The framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to establish the United States as a republic, not as a democracy – as a government of laws, not of people. It is very significant, Wirths notes, that not only is the term ‘democracy’ not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, but the word does not appear in the constitutions of any of the fifty states.”
The Founding Fathers established America as a Republic in order to perpetuate the grip of their own particular class on power from generation to generation. Laawrence Jarach noted that, “American government has always relied on a semi-hereditary ruling class made up of men from the overlapping realms of the military and intelligence industries, large corporations/landowners and legal firms, energy companies, and ordinary gangsters. Most of those who wield real influence and power in Washington DC are never elected; instead they are appointed to cabinet positions (the current best example being Karl Rove). The constant recycling and reshuffling of unelected business and government executives (some in the current administration have careers dating back two or three decades) into these positions of power maintains the consistency of government regardless of whichever figurehead sits in the Oval Office. This is not the result of some kind of aberration or betrayal of democracy-it is exactly what a republican form of government requires for continuity.”
THE CONSPIRACY OF DEMOCRACY
One of the most intriguing phenomena in modern times is the mischievously relentless propagation of Democracy as the best viable system of government despite the fact that we see everywhere, and literally on a daily basis, the woeful failure of Democracy as a system of government. It is rather to the discredit of modern man that he could quite easily be blindfolded to the realty of the events going on around him.
Peter Landry wrote, “We are all aware of promotion of Democracy as the only viable international world order. The goal of this establishment is the eventual adoption of Democracy as the system of government by all the nations of the world and it is to this ultimate goal that the entire western world (Europe and North America) is working towards right now.
A most painful aspect of this knavish development is the fact that Democracy is a western tradition which had woefully failed in the western world but which, despite that, is being forced upon the non-western, Third World, countries of the world in Asia, Africa and South America.
The question is why this conspiratorial promotion of an obviously discredited system of government. Why would a most powerful cabal of secret society internationalists be so resolute on bringing the entire world under the yoke of an utterly discredited system of government?
The answer is that the Western world leaders promoting Democracy as a world order are also well aware of the fact that Democracy is a lie. Their main reason for promoting Democracy is that it is a perfect tool for the enslavement of the people – the very people, the so-called majority, whose interest Democracy is supposed to protect.
Peter Landry wrote that, “The reality is that we are forever fixed with an oligarchy (government of the few) masquerading as a democracy. The purpose of the ruling few is to execute its constitutional functions, which, because democracy is unworkable, should be tightly circumscribed. The ideal of democracy is to be promoted, as it has been, to the rulers and the ruled, as a sacred icon; never mind that it cannot be used to put a society into action, to pass laws, and never mind that it will rarely cast up honest and wise leaders.”
These Western world leaders know that the majority can never and will never rule the minority – yet they kept on deceiving the masses, through the lie of Democracy, that the majority are being empowered to rule society.
N ik wrote, “In fact, I’d say examples like Athens and the German Democratic Republic are further proof of my point – that the myth of democracy is used to hide the fact that the many are ruled by the few, and that the promise of democracy is held out as an ideal to be worked towards under the ‘current democratic system’ – that is, it is a tool to channel desires for freedom, autonomy, life, etc into vague reformist projects of the current (then and now) fundamentally inequitable political system that have no chance of actualising their modest aims.”
The ‘People’ don’t Exist
One other major myth of the lie of the Theory of Democracy is the concept of the ‘People’ which has all too often become a banal cliché. The truth of the matter is that, just like the concept of Democracy itself, the ideal of the People is a fiction, period!
Throughout the illusory history of Democracy the concept of the People has remained a perfect fiction. The People have never existed and never will exist as far as the Theory of Democracy is concerned.
The concept of the ‘People’ is more or less a theoretical ideal which form a cardinal cornerstone upon which the Theory of Democracy is built. Over the centuries various ideologues and philosophers on the part of Democracy have grapple with the correct definition of the ‘People’.
Edmund Burke, for instance, theorized that the ‘People’ encompasses not only the living but also the dead and the unborn.
The ‘People’ as used by politicians and the promoters of the Theory of Democracy is a mirage they invented and are using to deceive the masses. N ik wrote, “‘the people’ is as much a political construction as an actual thing – a people is the political construction that the nation-state is built upon. To be ‘ruled by the people’, is to be ruled by a fiction created to maintain the nation-state. This would indicate that ‘democracy’ is an even more profound lie than if it were just a matter of straight deception – not only is the sense of participation a lie, not only is the idea that the people who live within a nation-state have the power to rule over themselves a lie, but the notion that they are even ‘one people’ a lie. But maybe the word lie here is inappropriate – a much better notion I feel would be Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra – ‘the truth that hides the fact there is none.’”
There is no denying the fact that the current propagation of Democracy, an obvious failure, as the best system of government in the world is the handiwork of a conspiratorial cliché. A very careful investigative research work will, however, reveal that the conspirators in question constitute not just a single cliché or group but, in realty, several groups of internationalist conspirators most of which are actually unknown to the general public.
These international secret societies are better known as the Secret Governments because they operate and live behind covers. The phenomenon of the secret government began in Europe a long time ago during the time of the regicide revolutions and ideologies that rocked the Europe of the 18th century and which, among many other things, gave rise to the promotion of Democracy as a possible basis for a One World Government.
These international secret governments are mostly plutocratic and oligarchic establishments who are not genuinely interested in the promotion of Democracy as a viable system of government. What they are after is the exercise of naked power over the world. And they have realized that such powers are not obtainable directly or legally; that the procurement of such powers has to be indirectly and illegally; that the world must be deceived and delved into thinking otherwise. One such way to deceive and divert the attention of the world is through the propagation of Democracy, an impracticable system of government, as the most viable system of government in the world. Now there is no more wonder why Democracy is being aggressively pushed upon the entire world.
These secret societies, global lodges and secret governments know very well, more than anybody else, that Democracy is easier theorized than practicalized. They very well know more than us that Democracy can never be translated into practice. Yet they propagate ‘Democracy’ because it is their means of deceiving and opiating the world, the masses, into falling preys to their conspiratorial whim.
In that case we may as well say that what is being promoted today as ‘Democracy’ is not Democracy. In other words, it is not the ‘Government of the People by the People for the People’, which is impracticable, that is being promoted by these plutocratic power mongers of international inclinations. These oligarchic plutocrats are not interested in the plight of the masses of the world, they are interested only in using the masses, through ‘Democracy’, to achieve their secret, international, objectives.
Some of the leading conspiratorial powers behind the hypocritical promotion of Democracy worldwide include the plutocratic cliché of politicians in Washington who are using the immense powers of the American government to achieve their selfish goals; a number of powerful European governments; a collection of powerful and overly wealthy families; etc, etc.
In the following chapters we discuss some of these conspiratorial powers and their pseudo-democratic machinations.
America is not Promoting Democracy
The powerful media houses of the West are droning our ears on a daily basis with claims that America is the number one champion of international Democracy in the world. The truth, however, is far from this Western media propaganda. If anything at all, American foreign policy, in the name of Democracy, is paradoxically destroying all elements of democratic development in all parts of the world.
American leaders are used to hiding under the name of ‘Democracy’ to commit all sorts of national and international atrocities. Weebies wrote that, “All this shows how easily words and ideas are subverted by the state, and how the state portrays them in a manner that is contradictory to their original intent. When Bush and his criminal cronies expound on the benefits of democracy, freedom, liberty, the rule of law, fighting terrorism, and the free market, one sees that they are using these terms as superficial gloss to hide their criminal activities and mayhem – what they really mean is that they want to use force and coercion, the power of the state, to impose their will on anyone at any time they choose.”
William Boyer wrote that, “Instead of building international institutions based on real democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the United States is moving toward global fascism.”
One other hypocritical aspect of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Democracy is the fact that Washington is also in full support of undemocratic and dictatorial regimes. The same U.S. government that claims to be championing Democracy in all parts of the world is the same government that is supporting the undemocratic monarchies and regimes in Saudi Arabia, in Uzbekistan, in Jordan, in Pakistan, and so on and on.
‘DEMOCRACY’ OR REGICIDISM
It is not only in our times that the concept of Democracy is being dubiously used as a means to secret ends; it has been used similarly in the past. However, its focus of emphasis has changed over the years. Whereas it is mainly used today to enslave the masses it was mainly used in the past to topple the monarchical governments of kings and emperors. That is to say even in the past ‘Democracy ‘ was not Democracy.
The most interestingly recurrent aspect of the topic of Democracy is this irreconciliable dichotomy between theory and practice. In theory Democracy is perfect and infallible but in practice Democracy is repugnantly ill-contrived and wholly imperfect and abhorrently fallible. This imply that it is very much possible for two types of Democracy, namely the Theoretical Democracy and the Practical Democracy, to co-exist side by side. The only problem being that while Theoretical Democracy is seemingly infallible, Practical Democracy is woefully fallible.
The disheartening point here is that awry ideologues and defrauding politicians can take advantage of this dichotomy and arrogate the seemingly perfect investitures of Theoretical Democracy for Practical Democracy, that is, supplant the Infallible for the Fallible. This is the basis of the allegation that what is practically referred to as Democracy is not, theoretically, Democracy. Or in other words, that Democracy is not Democracy.
While Theoretical Democracy is genuinely, though foolhardily, concerned with the plight of the masses and, therefore, the democrat ideologue is usually sincere in his zealous activism for the improvement of the plight of the masses, Practical Democracy (that is Democracy in practice) is not capable of even broaching the question of the plight of the masses and can, at best, only be used as a tool for mischief making by the elite who seek oligarchic or plutocratic powers through criminal means.
Infact the plutocratic elite of Europe has deliberately used Democracy to usurp power from the European royalty since the days of the French Revolution in the 18th century. Democracy, as we have discussed in a previous section, has been around in Europe since protoprehistoric days, and it actually boomed during the era of the Indo-European Anarchy and the period of Hellenism, but it was not until the beginning of the Modern Ages, after the end of the Renaissance era, that the European plutocrats discovered that, in their age-old struggle with the royalty, Democracy will serve as the ultimate weapon of regicidism.
Modern Democracy therefore derives its roots from the regicide revolutions that overwhelmed 18th century Europe. For a long time thenceforth, many people viewed Democracy as being synonymous with Regicide and everywhere throughout Europe the royalty had tried to stamp out the evil of Democracy. There had then ensued that long-lasting and insidious battle between Democracy and Monarchy in Europe. Over the years, the European royalty lost the battle inch by inch while the plutocrats gained more and more powers.
The point that should be noted here, however, is that the battle between Democracy and Monarchy was an extraordinary battle since it was between a visible monarchical Europe and an invisible plutocratic Europe. It was the Age of the Secret Societies when people like Francis Bacon would belong to an underground secret society that was hell-bent on overthrowing King James I. While King James I’s monarchical government was visible for all to see, Francis Bacon’s secret society has remained unknown, invisible, to this very dy. But everybody, including King James himself, knew that Francis Bacon belonged to regicidal secret society. Now then, it was that invisibility that served as an edge for the Plutocrats over the Royalties.
That was how, gradually and over the years, Monarchy lost great grounds to Democracy as the vicious spirit of Regicidism gained more and more might in Europe. That trend has continued to this day: Monarchy is on a continuous decline while Democracy is in a continuous rise throughout the world. And in all these while both the masses and the royalties loose more and more of their rights and powers, the elitistic plutocrats gain more and more rights and powers.
The advent of European Colonialism over the whole world added a new twist to the issue of Democracy and Plutocratic oppression. European Colonialism expanded the power of Europe over the entire world and in the wake of that, spread the various aspects of European culture over the world. In that wise Democracy also became no more an intra-European affair, it became a global affair. Democracy was quietly exported by colonialism all over the world. That, predictably, proved a fatal mistake for Colonialism in the long run. Remember, colonialism is primarily a royal affair and it is no wonder that when Democracy became a worldwide affair it began to challenge Monarchy (in the form of the Colonial Government) right there at the colonies and not more merely at home back in Europe.
Gradually, again, Monarchy (Colonialism) began to lose its standing and control over the colonies as the European plutocrats used every means, within and outside Europe, to discredit European Imperialism and Colonialism. A very handy example here was the 1788 trial of Warren Hastings, the Governor General of India. History will today readily testify that that infamous trial was not only used by the English plutocrats, through their agents including Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox and Richard Brinsley Sheridan, to not only disgrace Warren Hastings but to, more importantly, wrench the government of India out of the direct colonial control of the British Royalty (through the agent of the India Company) only for that same government to fall into the imperceptible – and virtually unseeable – hands of the Invisible Plutocratic powers of Europe.
But the most interesting aspect of the drama between Colonialism and Democracy lies, actually, in the intriguing use of Democracy by the European powers to control the nation states that gradually emerged from the worldwide colonies of Europe. For example as the Cecil Rhodes [plutocratic cliché gradually reduced the direct influence of ‘Great’ Britain’s Colonial Office on the South African sub-region so also did Cecil Rhodes gradually consolidated his personal powers over the colonial government of Rhodesia. In the end the direct control of the British royalty over Rhodesia was actually nominal and the de facto ruler became Cecil Rhodes who, of course, largely pulled the strings invisibly from behind the shadows of his Diamond mining empire. Of course that ‘British Colony’ became named, not after the Queen of England but, after Cecil Rhodes. In reality Rhodesia was more of Cecil Rhodes personal property than it was the British throne’s colony.
Cecil Rhodes didn’t just easily got absolute control of the government of Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe) until when, together with his secret society plutocratic member, he established an invisible government that simply stepped into the shoes of the British Colonial Government after the latter was effectively enfeebled.
We have used the story of Cecil Rhodes above to introduce the change of Democracy from being mainly a regicide tool, used by the plutocrats ousted Monarchy from power in Europe, into a Staticide weapon now used by the same plutocrats to gradually gnawed away at the sovereignty of today’s nation states. The era of the use of Democracy as a regicide weapon over since it has, to a great extent, achieved its goal of making the kings and royalty of Europe irrelevant in the government of their countries. Today virtually all the royal families of Europe are so powerless in the government of their countries that the powers they formerly exercised are now solely exercised by the various parliamentary systems constituted by elitist members of invisible plutocratic secret governments.
After rendering the Monarchy powerless in Europe the plutocratic powers next turn their attention on using Democracy to appropriate the sovereign powers of all the other nation states of the rest of the world. In other words the plutocratic powers of the western world have turn Democracy into a weapon of global staticidism.
We are today in the era of the use of Democracy as a weapon for the appropriation of the powers of all sovereign states by various secret society clichés of international plutocrats who constitute the assorted invisible governments of a vaguely defined New World Order. The appalling fact, however, is that very few people are aware of the ongoing international battle between Democracy and the national sovereignty of all the nations in the world today.
The international World Establishment of the plutocratic invisible governments have long ago, precisely at the beginning of the late 20th century and just on the very eve of the First World war, declared an all out war against the idea of national sovereignty. From being petty power mongers, of the likes of Napoleon, Bismarck, Mussolini, etc within Europe, the plutocratic power-mongers of Europe have gone international as the Old World Order Europe collapsed unto the deadly clutches of the two World Wars and have thenceforward relentlessly, but secretly, struggled for the establishment of a One World Government, so-called New World Order, through the projection of impracticable Democracy as the best system of government in the world.
Why Democracy Will Not Work in the Third World
Democracy is not a system of government that can be transplanted and impose on an alien society which lack all the prerequisite social settings for a successful democratic development. The Third World, to this very day, lacks most of the democratic social values, and traditional facilities that have made the creation of a semblance of Democracy in the First World possible.
Dr. Masoud Kazemzadeh wrote that, “there are mores, ethos and other values among the population that sustains democracy and freedom. In other words, there have been many instances of a democratic system having been established but the democratic system was not able to consolidate.”
The Third World is poor, illiterate, ethnically segregated and lacks any tradition of democratic experience in its ancient history. All these factors are high deterrents to the successful institution and development of Democracy in the Third World.
The forceful imposition of Democracy on the Third World, despite the fact that the Third World is socially ill-equipped for Democracy as pointed out above, is the main reason why Democracy has today turned into the most underdeveloping and a most destructive phenomenon on the political and governmental landscape of the Third World.
The authors of ‘Conservative Debate Handbook’ wrote, “To embrace the concept of “one man/ one vote Democracy,” in a country where the bulk of the inhabitants are poor, little educated and with no tradition for individual responsibility and accountability for public or private relations, is to assume that you can ignore the essential attributes of a working model and still obtain a benign result. Clearly, this is not the case. The usual result is a scramble, among potential demagogues on the Left, to manipulate the largest following among the most susceptible–that is, the least qualified, those least able to reason analytically, in the general population.”
There are quite a number of reasons why Democracy will not work in the Third World. We will discuss some of these reasons below.