Before you dismiss that apparently cynical question, imagine yourself back at school in a classroom in the first year of your education--so you are officially illiterate,
ignorant. You are asked to vote for your chief. Most probably you will vote for the one who appeals to you with the most benefits. Regardless of the downside to that, your previously unchallenged mind won't distinguish what's really to your benefit. How do you assess,weigh, judge alternatives? Most importantly, against what?

One can argue that democracy is called a process. That's why it takes time to age and mature. Right? Unfortunately this is not the case for most developing countries.

Samuel.P.Huntington, the first to mention the term "clash of civilizations," argued that democracy can't be applied in the Middle East. But why? That question is answered through the striking observation, ( I believe made by the notorious {Editor: left original word but thought it might be "noted} philosopher MURAD WAHBA), that there are two eras of change that happened in EUROPE which are "Enlightenment" and "Renaissance," missed by the developing countries to this date. The first principle of enlightenment is to advocate reason as the primary basis of authority. Consequently, breaking free from the chains of dogma, the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization. That's where the problem lies.

The common person in undeveloped countries doesn't have a mindset that can argue with his common beliefs. He can't accept reason as the "only possible humanitarian basis for authority. Thus any democracy will only surface the "DOGMATIC ELITE"and not the "ENLIGHTENED" ones. An ill fate awaits those who use democracy in an unenlightened society. In the end, you have to replace dogma with reason, to provide the basis for the competent, liberal, constructive RENAISSANCE.