Democracy is an American lie to cripple emerging economies

 The Americans did not become rich and powerful due to democracy. This also applies to the European and British Empires. They became rich and powerful from exploitation of the weak, from invasion and plundering of countries, from violation of human rights and war crimes, including massacres and genocides. They only pretend to champion democracy after they became rich and comfortable, with a big economy to cushion the destructive nature of democracy. 

China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea did not become rich because of democracy. Did Singapore become rich because of democracy in the western mold? The Indonesia used the term guided democracy to describe democracy under a strong man like Suharto.

The Russians tried democracy but broke apart and almost slipped into the third world. Many ex colonies are still struggling to be functional and stable countries while practising democracy or so called democracy. The more democratic they become, the more unstable were their countries and the more dysfunctional were their economies. This is the truth about democracy in poor and developing countries, like an infant wanting to behave like an adult but really behaving like the ill disciplined and rather wild adolescents. 

Democracy is destructive in the sense that it unleashes the factional forces of all interest groups to compete against each other, pitting one group against another for their own selfish interests. When the pie is small, when a country is divided, the liberating of competing forces would only destroy the little pie and make the country and people poorer. In the early stages of a country's development, there is a critical need to unite the people as one, with a common interest to bring unity and prosperity for the country and people. This is basic. A poor and developing country cannot have the luxury of division in the name of democracy. They need to be one people with one common goal, to bring progress and development to their country to raise the standard of living of the people. A hungry people, a disorganised country and economy has to put democracy on the back burner, get the house in order first. The basic needs of the people is about food, security and a roof over the head. Democracy is a luxury when a country is rich and secured. It is like getting rich first and then talking about having more life style choices. 

China is a good example of getting the priorities right. Feed the people well, give them proper housing and education, jobs etc, alleviate poverty. Once these have been attained, there will be room and time to play with democratic ideals. Many countries are being lured and lied to about putting democracies above all, never mind if the people are hungry, the country poor and in distress. Democracy is not the cure all or the first priority to live a better life.  This is just a western myth, to keep the poor developing countries in trouble, to destabilise poor countries and keep their countries dysfunctional with infighting among the different interest groups on a little piece of pie and pretending to be happy without the basic needs to live as dignified human beans?

Democracy is about self, the interest of individuals and groups. Where these interests are diversed, it would lead to factionalism and infighting and destruction. Many poor countries cannot afford such divisiveness within the country. There is a bigger common good that must be attained first. Build the nation first, on a surer and stronger foundation before releasing the destructive forces of democracy to allow everyone and every group to fight for themselves against the common good. However, some prefer to have liberalism and democratic values while going hungry. This is a case of choosing the right priorities.

The Americans would like every poor country to be democratic and in chaos, forever fighting among themselves instead of uniting for a common greater goal. The difference in development between India, the biggest democracy in the world, and China is for all to see. China is getting richer and attaining all the basic needs of its people. China will move along to be more and more democratic in the long run, benefiting the people of the country. China will develop a democracy based on a sound economy and a higher standard of living of its people. Such a democratic development would be more stable and lasting as the foundation is strong. India will continue its democratic system with divisive forces dragging its feet and preventing it from running at full speed. 

Who would be the winner? Which is a better model?