The Abuse of Democracy
Essentially, democracy is "collective leadership," which is unnatural, since in nature only one/few superior herd member(s) can lead, having qualities the rest don't have. Nature privileges leaders at the expense of subjects, which is unfair but vital for order. Humans developed democracy as a compromise between nature's order and man's aspired equality, for neither following nature nor challenging it is advisable alone. Democracy is needed until better future tools of governance are available, e.g. a fully electronic government, and the human nature itself changes, e.g. into a more equal "genetically-designed" one.
Full democracy is impossible and paradoxical, where all people rule all people, being simultaneously "leaders & subjects"! What a so-called democratic country has is only partial democracy, since any organization within it still needs a hierarchical leadership (more coherent & competence-based than in autocracies, yet still discriminately hierarchical). A center of command/power centralization is inevitable, however we try to limit it. Successful countries are those applying democracy without losing order. Both are preferably, gradually done by machine (bot-ocracy), since all leaders and subjects are naturally, instinctively biased.
Rushing to a premature democracy can be fatal. "Voting" is a partial indirect leadership and decision making, that requires "first" sufficient stability, maturity & willingness to make a decision. At such decisive moments we need our full being (body, mind & heart), thus basic "security, literacy & integrity" of individuals must precede democracy. These are vital in deciding one's future, let alone that of a whole country.
Some idealists and leftists, out of touch with reality, occupy themselves daily with analyzing and planning for humanity's future, of what it deserves and where it should be, not where it is now and where it was before. They forget to read enough history, to understand how states developed: from strong and secure, informed and educated, then democratic, able to rule themselves, just as adults are allowed a "driving license" after a certain age and enough practice. This took decades, if not centuries, in many Western countries, the common pioneers and advocates of democracy (and, coincidentally, the common colonialists too).
It's better to grow democracy gradually, than to hit a nation suddenly and catastrophically with nationwide democracy, to the misfortune of such nation, and rejoicing of internal/external powers exploiting and rejoicing in its misfortune. Democracy shouldn't be immediately applied nor fully delayed. It starts
Although democracy creates satisfaction, motivation, responsibility, and independence among society's members, it does so slowly, individually, from a bottom-up perspective, compared to an authoritarian rule that makes decisions and implement plans faster, from a top-down perspective. Democracy can be time-consuming, where time abuse not only slows down development, but risks the life and livelihood of many in the process.
It can abuse the sympathy we "initially" feel for others, failing to see the long-term necessities and priorities they and society need. In democracy every vote counts and we have to listen to every individual and individual needs, important or not (a pay raise, house ownership, pet rights, more sex/religion/arts ... and the more vital health insurance, good education, research funding, freedom of expression, and social and national security). Many voters are blind to see how long-term goals eventually or indirectly help achieve the short-term ones they only see and want now.
Democracy exposes people's differences, making some forget the "common goals" they all share. It can abuse individuality at the expense of harmony, teamwork, and other group values. Group is more important than individual, whether we like it or not. Quantity does matter, not just quality. No stability is possibe alone, nobody lives in a vacuum, each one of us is part of a whole we can't ignore.
Almost all democracies are intrinsically flawed, misapplied, always leading to majority-rule, whereas the minority's votes, needs and views are simply, democratically ignored. Almost half of society (49.9 %) could be ignored. To that extent democracy can DIVIDE society. With such flagrant abuse of statistics some still claim "demo-cracy" is the rule of the people. What people? It's majority-rule, not people-rule.
Proper democracy should go "in harmony with nature" to avoid chaos. Statistics show a strong relationship between intelligence/education level and voting choices. This triggered some in 1st world countries to suggest banning people below certain IQ levels even in "their own democratic societies" from voting (to say nothing of the more backward ones, with high illiteracy rates, tribal/sectarian conflicts, forced/natural isolation, misinformation, alongside low IQs). The ban could spare nations the wrong decisions on critical issues made by a portion of the population that simply doesn't understand or know whom to vote for (not to mention those not even knowing the names of their leaders).
Others suggested for unqualified individuals (low-IQ/illiterate/fanatic/superstitious) to choose a trusted well-educated person (e.g. a close friend/family member) to vote on their behalf, as a compromise to avoid bias against less mature citizens while keeping them away from leading positions or critical decisions. Unfortunately, such suggestions are usually challenged by political correctness, one of humanity's prime evils keeping it from moving forward and slowing down the entire human civilization.
Abusing religion/race in democracy's name is common. Almost all elections held in half-illiterate fanatic societies lead to the rise of extremists THE MOB CHOOSES for no reason other than a candidate's impressive/pious appearance, or superficial charity works that never root out poverty.
This prompted some fledgling democracies to ban religion-based/race-based political parties that mix "state" with religion/race (Islamists, Supremacists, etc.), manipulating the secular nature of democracy to serve their non-secular goals. It prompted others to assign certain quotas/posts/terms to the different religious/ethnic minorities' representatives, as a compromise to avoid bias and clashes between them caused by voters' subjective choices, who are not politically mature yet to vote based on a candidate's merit and competence, not their race, faith, gender, etc.
To encounter the abuse of money/media in democracies, many countries enforce laws limiting election campaign budget, publicity, and influence on voters around election time/location (where votes are almost bought if not stolen). To limit a candidate's reliance on verbal/social skills, their full CV and program for their constituents are published long in advance and even monitored after a candidate wins, in case he/she doesn't fulfill his/her promises thus should be removed from office if possible.
Cliquism or forming cliques/alliances sharing personal interests is common. "Unworthy" but strongly-bonded organized cliques can overpower worthy ones. This is pure tribalism, not democracy (it's even egregiously common inside the UN), where allied groups rally heavily among themselves esp. before voting. The damaging effect of cliquism can be lessened by having more "transparency" of parties' and their members' activities; and more "diversity" within alliances so that any member can freely leave/join any alliance based on one's competence not loyalty.
External abuse of democracy is worse sometimes. Many a foreign country would support or host opposition members of another to serve its own interests, even by wreaking havoc, not real democracy there.
The "democracy decoy" or appeal to the mob fallacy is commonly used by neo-colonialists. Colonialism is human instinctive GREED in its collective cross-border form, seeking "more" even at the expense of others' stability and life. Neo-colonial powers either support dictators "allied" with them, or, if not, support radicals the mob typically vote for to topple such dictators. Thus they keep those colonized societies living in the dark ages, unable to develop or unite, lest they threaten their colonial interests.
Traditionally, colonialists colluded with local spies, traitors, and unpatriotic natives in their colonies to spread chaos and divide, thus easing their rule. Presently, no better than religious fanatics serve such goal, presented by those powers as moderates/conservatives, although they are neither, for they have no value for patriotism or LIFE: they may only value their supremacist utopia/afterlife "residence" and its Nazi/Caliphate/etc. version on Earth, that has nothing to do with modern politics or democracy.
Few liberals stop to argue about the MOTIVE for their advanced 1st world countries' interference in others' politics, even believing their own 1st world leaders (instinctively following their herd's alpha male, just like many in backward countries do for lack of freedom/ability of critical thinking the former assume to have). Such liberals overestimate the good and ignore the evil in human nature, missing the fundamental principle of self-interest inherent in every organism, governing everyone and everything, from electrons to galaxies.
Example: Western neo-colonialists insist on forcing democracy "immediately" on others, shoving it down their throat even if they choke to death, in the name of creative chaos, despite the obvious destructive chaos it leads to: civil wars, millions killed and displaced, armies depleted, and states divided and fallen. In this manner, many unfortunate crossroad countries, strategic to western interests, were ruined: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Ukraine, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. Others, who resisted the plot, were demonized and isolated: N. Korea, Eritrea, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, etc. And many, of less interest to colonial powers, were simply ignored, despite craving for true democracy, support and guidance, like most of Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, or Oceania. Meanwhile, the allies of THE WEST, who served its interest at the expense of THE REST of the world, were much luckier, successful YET turning in western unipolar world orbit as mere satellite states: Turkey, Qatar, S. Korea, Japan, etc.
A glaring, flaming example of democracy abuse in modern-times is the ominous Arab Spring, followed by similar movements worldwide fueled by the internet and digital technology, sparked by the oppressed peoples themselves, yet directed by foreign neocolonialists whose strategists had long been preparing for years, knowing that regimes were aging and public anger mounting. Manipulating the chaos, instead of supporting the peoples, they sought even more chaos and "divide" there: to keep indirect control over resources and strategic sites, protect their businesses, support their allies and client states, and keep the rush of weapon sales and killing machines.
When such democracy fails, uninvolved outsiders easily blame insiders: liberals blame nationalists for trying to restore order and slow down democracy; supremacists blame others' barbarity and inferiority; and ultraconservative believers blame others' beliefs. It's none of the above. Belief is not the culprit, as many Muslim countries (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Morocco) suffer less in their democracy, simply because they are West-friendly. Rather, democracy fails in countries where the West, intentionally or ignorantly, supports Islamists instead of secularists. It fails because of western tycoons of multinational businesses, oil and arms. Above all, it fails because its failure emboldens regressive forces at home (authoritarians, extremists, anarchists, and pessimists) to reject democracy and the reform people aspire.