Democracy Has Become Dangerous

Democracy has become dangerous because it always sees through not just one, but two eyes. Since it is made “of, by and for the people,” its primary eye always looks for the majority it depends on, while the other eye is tasked with protecting minority rights.

Due to this perpetual dilemma – owing its existence to the majority at the same time, an obligation towards various minority groups – democracy has a permanent handicap. A disorder of the type of Acromegaly, which results in excess growth of certain parts of the human body, while the rest of the body has stopped growing.

Various interests, in other words, pressure groups continue to extract an increasing share of benefits and resources at the expense of other sections of the population.

Democracy, by law, and if required through the courts, allows such a section of the population to grow while demanding sacrifices from other people. That is what makes it dangerous. Some texts say Goliath suffered from Acromegaly, which was the reason for his defeat and demise at the hands of David.

Democracy also seems destined for demise, not in one shot, but sling by sling. Here, “sling by sling” means that as some sections draw increasingly more and more from the system, the other class, making larger and long-term sacrifices, would eventually pull the catapult.

This conflicting obligation has developed into a major structural flaw for the survival of the current democracy system, as it is known. It was feared, by the British philosopher Bertrand Russel a century ago, that democracy does not always guarantee wise decisions. It presupposes that all men, and women of course, are equal.

Theoretically, democracy was tied to education; it could work if citizens could think independently and intelligently. However, in real-world, competitive, and dirty politics, people driven by passion and hysteria rarely demonstrate the minimum expected independent thinking.

The single greatest virtue of democracy is that it provides a mechanism for peacefully removing a government. The ballot box, or the court, is a substitute for the bullet. Regardless of the method, the cost to society cannot be overlooked.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court removed the popular and youngest (39 years old) Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra from office on August 29, 2025, holding her guilty of ethical misconduct. A leaked phone call in June 2025 revealed that she referred to neighbouring country Cambodia’s former leader 73-year-old Hun Sen, as “uncle” while discussing a border dispute that later escalated into deadly armed clashes.

She defended that her gesture was meant to de-escalate the border situation, but the Thai court determined her action had undermined public trust and ended her tenure as prime minister.

Another dangerous display of democracy. Indian National Congress party’s dynastic leader Rahul Gandhi signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2008. This pact, first and rare of its kind, between an Indian political party and a foreign power, remains controversial to date due to a lack of publicly disclosed details.

No constitutional court in India dares ask Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi to disclose the contents of the MoU because political hegemony in India bestows such unbridled powers on certain individuals who are more than equals.

When an individual is assumed to be a Goliath, bigger than a system of which he is a part, either or both of them are to be defeated by nature.