It must be granted that government by persons that were ordained by God, the Rich or a voting majority might not be optimally wise, just or successful. At the same time, the decisive question is not the immaculate perfection of governance. The issue to be decided is why such authority should be regarded, on the basis of logic and experience, to be less benign than the dominance by those who feel deputized by the “logic of history” or that are bureaucratic planners implementing “progress”?
Whenever an election is held in Iraq or Afghanistan the high turnout is always praised. But no mention is made of what the voters are voting for. They aren't voting for tolerance, pluralism, democracy, or any of the other platitudes advocated by the Bush State Department. Rather, the Sunnis are voting to put themselves in power, the Shia are voting to put themselves in power, and so forth. The turnout is high because no faction wants any other faction to have power, which inevitably means suppression of all other factions, plus control of oil wealth and other perks.
Back in the Sixties, the left would sometimes theorize about what would happen if we had an election in America and everybody came. The belief was that a 100 percent turnout would mean the have-nots would outnumber the haves at the ballot box and would vote to plunder the nation economically, which they saw as a good thing. I don't know if that's really what would have happened, but the left saw "democracy" as the proverbial two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. That's how most of the world views it outside of Western Civilization, as we're seeing in Iraq. It should be a warning to everyone about what diversity leads to. Instead, our neocons nurture pipe dreams of a pluralist Middle East where everyone gets along once "democracy" is imposed everywhere.