Top Ad unit 728 × 90



Democracy is not the Panacea of Every Ills That’s Afflicting This World

Democracy tends to divide citizens in developing countries, rather than making the people united. Photo: Independence Day Celebration in Asmara, May 24, 2013

Democracy is not the Panacea of Every Ills That’s Afflicting This World

By Barnabas Araya Yohannes,

The question of just government has been one of the eternal themes of philosophy since Plato and Aristotle to Emanuel Kant and Karl Marx.

Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?" (John 18:38). Behind the question of Pilate arises another still more important and more profound question, the eternal question of mankind: "What is justice?" No other question has been discussed so passionately; no other question has caused so much precious blood and so many bitter tears to be shed; no other question has been the object of so much intensive thinking by the most illustrious thinkers from Plato to Kant; and yet, this question is today as unanswered as it ever was. It seems that it is one of those questions to which the resigned wisdom applies that man cannot find the definitive answer, but only try to improve the question.

Some philosophers have considered democracy to be the most just form of government, others monarchy. Democracy, with its inherent principle of equality, is just insofar as every citizen can be called upon to share in responsibility for the exercise of state power, is the best system. On the other hand, that it has the potential to degenerate into ochlocracy (the mob rule), however, was recognized by thinkers as early as Aristotle.

The problem of today's multi-party democracy consists in a fundamental contradiction:

how is it possible for a party to be impartial? Can a ruling party seek only the common good without being disloyal to its role as representative of the interest groups that have elected it? An impartial party is in fact a contradiction in terms. This unsolved problem today remains as topical as ever.

Another problem in a multi-party democracy is that there is always somebody else to blame for one’s own failures. Nobody takes the full responsibility.

The worst corruption of justice is apparent in two extremes: tyranny and anarchy. Tyranny of the totalitarian state is unjust government. A Philosopher, Pieper, emphasizes that in the human world there can hardly be a worse or more hopeless disaster than unjust rule . . . Everything in the world depends on rulers being just.

Yet, although the despot has no will to do justice, tyranny is still preferable than anarchy because there is at least a central political will, a monopoly on force that prevents the outbreak of individual violence. Life and death decisions are made by just one (albeit arbitrary) power, rather than by the chaos of mob violence.

In contrast, in the other form, anarchy, the law ceases to be valid because there is no power to uphold it. It results in mob rule, the law of the jungle; it is fittingly described by the key phrase in Thomas Hobbes': “Man is a wolf to man”.

The recent history of Somalia, a failed state, is a good example. The political conditions, under the rule of the despot Siad Barre, were despicable enough. Following his downfall, however, State structures collapsed totally, so that anarchy and chaos prevail to this day.

Iraq is another example. For the preservation of democratic political formula in Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives (most of them innocent), 4,459 Americans have died, 33,080 Americans have been wounded, there are 100,000 suffering posttraumatic stress disorder and the staggering cost (at $2 billion per week), it now stands at 4 trillion dollars -- evidences such as these have caused the congress of the U.S., the American people, and the rest of the world to ask the critical question "is democracy worthy all these human and financial cost?"

First of all, if democracy automatically brings unity and, consequently as a result of that unity, peace and prosperity comes out, none of that exist in Iraq. Secondly, when people are divided and, consequently, fighting against each other, they create a fertile ground for external forces to manipulate them. Now, you cannot blame the external forces for their own failure. The results of all these cumulative facts of disintegration, turmoil and bankruptcy have been uniformly devastating. It only shows a picture of a total failure of a total democracy.

Without a doubt, anarchy is the greatest threat to human society. It means the loss of any kind of security, the end of civilization, chaos, a war of all against all.

In summary, democracy can only function where there is already at least a minimum of order. Where order has completely broken down and social relations have practically ceased to exist – in short, where there is chaos – democracy is very difficult to establish, as recent historical experience has shown. In such cases, a firm hand may be required as an interim solution and as a way of bringing the situation under control. Then, there remains the problem that such 'interim' situations tend to degenerate into tyranny or despotism.

When the British ruled India (c.1600-1947), for example, they ruled it with feudalism. However, before they left, they introduced democracy. They knew exactly what they were doing. Their aim was to divide the people; create conflict; and then sell weapons.

In India, particularly, which had been under Muslim rule for six centuries, there was a Hindu population of 41 million, against a Muslim population of 7 million, (according to the Census of 1931). During the six centuries, the Muslims were ruling the Indians. The Hindus and the Muslims had lived together as fellow-citizens for centuries.

That was, of course changed, when the British colonized India. When the British wanted to introduce democracy, the Muslims (minority) refused to be ruled by the Hindus (majority). Consequently, Indians were divided against each other until India, Pakistan, Burma, Nepal, and Sri-Lanka were divided. These chain of events has eventually resulted in perpetual conflicts between India and Pakistan with the threats of weapons of mass destruction.


Sponsored Ads
Democracy is not the Panacea of Every Ills That’s Afflicting This World Reviewed by Admin on 3:44 PM Rating: 5


  1. Sir, what is the opposite of democracy?? According to my dictionary the opposite of democracy is "dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy, autocracy, tyranny " , which is what we have in our country. I know you are trying to justify on what is going on in Eritrea by your stupid article.

  2. Barnabas,

    You just beat a round the bush to
    justify the dictatorship in Eritrea.Do you scare us with Somalia, Iraq or
    Syria's case TV Ere starts the news from Somalia to Iraq, from Iraq to Afghanistan
    when people dying of road side bombs or in Nigeria Boka haram etc.. Is the
    world consists only these countries. Why don't you mention the other 100
    countries live in peace and democracy in the world. The anarchy in Somalia , Afghanistan
    , Iraq and other part of the world has not started with the invasion of other
    countries rather the ruthless dictators have been killing silently thousands
    people with impunity ,the difference is now the TV brought everything over the
    ground. Please say I like the dictator for some reason but not justify to find
    some yes men to clap for you.Before you paste and copy things, read them carefully and don't just post everything you paste.

  3. so there will not be democracy in eritrea for ever!.who can say this the dictator or the eritrean people?
    but this time around what I am learning now is eritrea is becoming failed.what we see in eritrea are the preconditions who can urgently lead to the way of a failed state.
    if possible it will be the responsibility of every eritrean to find a remedy before the collapse rate increases but it has already statrted.

  4. To all eritreans;-
    please try to invetigate freely what was the main problem for all these failruty?
    -before 60 years9before the start of independent movement)-
    -after independent.

  5. you want to convince people that democracyis is that exists in the western world? This is what you think, and those who sell democracy.. I have my own interpretation of that which is so far from that..

    Manuele kab Roma

  6. Thanks Barnabas for the 'analysis.

  7. Thanks Barnbas! for the articulated article that elaborated the failed of imported democracy of the west in the developing countries. The most hated, corrupted and the weapon of mass distraction imported democracy of the west is killing many innocent children, women and other people all around the globe. The pseudo democracy of the west followed by drones, infiltrated both militarily and politically destabilized many poor countries and left them with endless civil, tribal, ethical, religious bloody conflict and war.

    The imported west democracy strategy is used as an instrument to rule and divide the continent in a particular Africa countries to serve for their own interests and other few traitors. The two countries in Africa that has refused to kneel down for the imported west democracy are Eritrea and Zimbabwe, and are considered as a dangerous countries in Africa by the evil eyes of the west.
    The truth lies behind this video clip, analyzed by American Glen Ford On Eritrea and Zimbabwe. Watch this you tube for those who are interested to understand the reality behind the garbage and imported wasted west democracy that is destabilizing countries for their own interests.
    Sorry my country Eritrea will not import the fabricated democracy of the west. We are the Eritrean people who refused to kneel down.
    Long live Eritrea and Eritrean people!

  8. Imagine if you were in Eritrea you would put all in eraero ,,,You should have given Barnabas chance to reply my comment...

  9. The person who is writing this article is enjoying democracy to write his ideas and tells us democracy is a dividing tool
    He is a hypocrite he is trying to justify for isyas for sitting in power for over two decades .......that is rubbish

  10. Mr Kahsay, who said democracy belongs only to the west? Or who said the patent of democracy is under West? I have been to Cosat Rica, a smal country in Central America, and that country is the perfect example of a democratic state. They didn't implement democracy to please the west, but to please the nation and its future generation. As far as I know there is only one democracy and that is not western or eastern.

  11. Don't try to tell us the price payed in Iraq was for democracy ? No it's not
    It was for oil and pls don't try to comper sadam Hussein with isayas afewerki at least Iraq had a constitution the rule of low and relatively presporous economy.
    What do we have today in Eritrea ?
    1-concentration camp sawa.
    2-The merchants of death Rashaida.
    2-corapted military officials ready to suck Eritrean blood.
    The list goes.........
    If there was not democracy you would not be able to write what you wrote .

  12. Who teach you there is only one democracy? Open your closed brain and read further here are some of the examples.

    1.A direct democracy or pure democracy is a type of democracy where the people govern directly.

    2.Athenian democracy or classical democracy refers to a direct democracy developed in ancient times in the Greek city-state of Athens.

    3. A popular democracy is a type of direct democracy based on referendums and other devices of empowerment and concretization of popular will.

    4. An industrial democracy is an arrangement which involves workers making decisions, sharing responsibility and authority in the workplace (see also workplace democracy).

    5. Intra-party democracy refers to the democratic process within a single-party state government. Scholars[citation needed] debate if the Chinese Communist Party resembles this process during leadership transitions.

    It depends how you use the word "democracy". I used the so called fabricated west democracy used to rule and divide countries for their own interest.

  13. So in short you are saying we Eritreans do not need democracy?

  14. Good question. I wonder what Kahsay is going to answer. I'm waiting!?

  15. Democracy must be based on your culture not be imported or imposed on you specially to fulfill their neo liberalism ideas by others and that is the main reason why most of the Africans , the Arabs and others fight each others for the name of democracy against their culture for the benefit of others.

  16. What you have said is totally correct on western style democracy but what if the Eritrean people like and enjoying their own ways of democracy ?.

  17. "During the six centuries, the Muslims were ruling the Indians. The
    Hindus and the Muslims had lived together as fellow-citizens for

    no they didn't

  18. i prefer one party state

  19. I am made in Eritrea Africa. All what I say and write are mine, it doesn't represent others.

  20. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 11, 2014 at 9:15 AM

    An updated text of this is on Facebook. Please update it or read it there.


  21. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

    The speaker is talking about the conquest.

    No doubt, the Muslim conquest of India was one of the bloodiest
    in history. The Muslim rulers were often
    men of ability, and their followers gifted with fierce courage and industry;
    only so can we understand how they could have maintained their rule among a
    hostile people so overwhelmingly outnumbering them.

    During the 6 centuries before the British came to India,
    however, when the Muslims ruled India, the Muslims treated the Hindus as follow
    citizens with freedom of their religion.
    The only difference was that they taxed the none-Muslims –as in any
    other places where the Muslims ruled. They,
    however, spent their taxes and spoils in India, and, thereby, turned them back into
    India’s economy.

  22. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:19 AM

    If democracy is not electing your own leaders by the majority vote and if that is what did not happen in Iraq, you need to learn what democracy is first before you could argue here.

  23. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:20 AM

    Do you have anything else to say?

  24. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:22 AM

    When discussions become too emotional, they lose rationality, and in nine out of ten, the tongue of the slanderer belongs to the one who cannot handle the truth.

  25. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:26 AM

    We shall wait and see about your pessimistic prophecy. But, the reason why Eritrea is better that Iraq, despite its oil wealth, is because of dictatorship. The cleavage between the conservatives and liberals in Egypt has made democracy unworkable. If the liberals take power, the conservatives will not be happy; and if the conservatives take power, the liberals will not be happy. Thus, the military (dictatorship) has been forced to intervene; and, thus far, it has been found the best alternative.

  26. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:30 AM

    Thanks Kahsay! If there could be democracy in Eritrea, it must come as an evolutionary and gradual progress. It cannot be bombed into existence.

  27. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 7:49 AM

    Out of all kinds of prejudices, religious bigotry is the
    worst. In Costa Rica, 90 percent of its
    population belongs to Christianity. The Islamic
    population is less than 1 percent. Thus,
    if there was religious bigotry, as in Israel, Iraq or Syria, there could not be
    democracy in there. That means, there is peace and stability. When there is peace and stability, you create
    a perfect environment for tourism and investors. That in turn creates growth in the economy
    and employment.

  28. Barnabas Araya YohannesMarch 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM

    Sometimes the majority means that all of the fools are on the same side. Hitler was elected democratically. When he was running for election with the Nazi program, the overwhelming majority of Germans elected him -- including most doctors, scientists, and engineers. He convinced his people that if the Europeans could be the masters of the colonized people, we could also colonize the Europeans and become masters of them. He said, once we win the war against the Europeans, we, Germans, will become the masters of the masters or, briefly, "the master race." That was his argument. How could the Europeans argue against that? When Europeans colonized Africa, they could not racist. But, when they became victims of colonization, suddenly, the Nazi ideology is the only racist program.

    The root cause of the civil war in Somalia is competition for resources. James Bishop, the United States' last ambassador to Somalia, explained that there is "competition for water, pasturage, and cattle. It is a competition that used to be fought out with arrows and sabers... Now it is fought out with AK-47s."* The lack of water is the cause of pasturage and food; and the lack of pasturage and food is the cause of continued violence and the humanitarian disaster.

    Be that as it may, now that Somalia is a failed state, ruled by endless violence of all against all, dictatorship is the only solution. Democracy could not work in Somalia.

    The root cause of all the civil and uncivil wars in Iraq, Pakistan, and India, has been declaring democracy in places where people were divided by religious sectarianism.

    In Eritrea, there is regionalism, there is tribalism, there is religious differences, and there is also poverty. All of the elements that could lead into civil war are concentrated in Eritrea. If there could be democracy in Eritrea, it must come as an evolutionary and gradual progress. It cannot be bombed into existence.


    (My Documents, Democracy is not the panacea of every ills)

    *Source Wikipedia


All Rights Reserved by Madote © 2016

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.