Democracy is a method for taking decisions. Decisions are taken by voting. This has nothing to do with freedom. At this moment in time, there are no democracies on Earth where people are suppressed as slaves, but it is very well possible and well within reach. Simply put: two wolves and a sheep vote what they will have for dinner. That is the other face of democracy. The sheep has all the freedom to vote, right? Democracy is all about the majority. The minority has very little to say. Suppose that a muslim leader is elected in the USA and he turns the USA into a bad tyrant country and changes all the laws. I know that’s not gonna happen anytime soon, because much less than half of the population is muslim. But let’s just say that changes in the future (can you predict the future?) and about 50% of the population is muslim and votes for a muslim leader. In that case you have no right to complain, because it was a fair and free election. Although this was just an illustrative example, please don’t ever say “it’s not gonna happen anyway”. A hundred years ago, if you talked about walking on the surface of the moon, you would hear people say “Stop talking rubbish – moon landings are never going to happen anyway”. Want another disadvantage? Democratic countries have elections every now and than. Clinton didn’t want Guantanamo Bay. Bush did want it, and Obama doesn’t want it but can’t abolish it. What will the future bring for Guantanamo Bay? There is no long term planning because all leaders have different opinions. Long term planning is really needed when it comes to retirement laws/tax/deductions, mortgage laws etc. Just look at the national debt of a democratic country and you will see it only increases (not counting glitches), because democratic leaders make budget plans for the next year only. This means national debt will only increase and economic cuts will also increase when you have democracy. You choose for democracy, you choose for debts.
Most democracies are constitutional democracies that include protections for minorities or individuals that supersedes simple majority votes. Wolves having sheep for dinner would violate most democratic constitutions.
There is no empirical evidence that non democratic rule results in wiser decision making even for economic issues. Cuba and North Korea may not have big debts, but even if they suffered the “evil debts” of democracy it is clear they would economically be better of. Do you know a country without democracy that you think provides better lives, even just economically for its citizens as a whole?
What about democracy as a “tyranny of the majority”? Obamacare, as an example, passed with no support from opposition party.
The third problem is -- 'when I have the majority votes, I can do what ever I want.'
If a group can always win on the votes, in the election / parliament / council, the group can do very drastic things, even to eliminate their counter parties, not just their seats in the parliament / council, but even the cultures and languages of the minorities. This is the situation in the young nations. The losers will go violent, in the parliament and on the streets. The extreme is - the first winner taking the advantage of 'winner-takes-all', and taking drastic acts shortly after the election, because they may not have the second chance, as in Egypt. Those with the minority votes are still being supported. The winner from majority has his mission. The minority would fight for survival. Both are elected, not to give way easily. The parties cannot compromise. The counterparts will try to paralyze the government, to show its impotency, until it is turned over, as in US and Egypt.
The fourth problem is -- money for election.
There is no free lunch. The money may come from the rich / the local powers / the old authorities. It can also from outside. Foreign influences are not for the local people's benefit. The old authorities try to be back and control the country again. The forces will tear the new country easily.
The fifth problem is -- the candidate.
He could have a mission. But more people are affiliated by the advantages - the power, money, frame, sex, ... . Why should the political party / the election money support him? Good character will be eroded easily, with the beasts remaining. Now and then there are scandals, in both the old and new worlds. Why should the people believe the politicians?
The sixth is -- the voters.
They vote for their benefit, not for democracy! When a candidate fits them more, a deal. The majority does not have long-vision. The voters want much more than the country can support. When the winners cannot hold their words, then they are liars. The losers do not lie? More and more people in the old democratic countries do not trust their governments, why should those in the new countries? However, the voting rates are not hundred percent. There are habitual voters, driving at their benefits - bias? Can the candidates neglect them, losing their own chances? TBC