Despite the many advantages that can be seen in this form of government, when we delve into its deeper flaws and examine its outcomes, we see that it has a terrible face, contrary to its beautiful appearance, which is often used to achieve the specific goals of Western governments. Some of its disadvantages are mentioned below:
1.The Rule of Ignorance: Aristotle, the father of political science, condemned democracy as a corrupt and misleading form of governance by a number of ignorant rulers. Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, called it the rule of ignorance. Lackey described democracy as follows: government is the playground of the poorest, most ignorant, and most unworthy persons, who are necessarily very numerous. In a democracy, wise people may be in the minority and isolated, while those less knowledgeable may lead. As a result, the elected representatives of the people often turn out to be incompetent and inexperienced individuals who lack management skills and practical wisdom.
2. lack of commitment: because the structure of this type of governance is based on the originality of the opinion of man and lack of religious commitment and lack of trust in divine guidance, it does not have the support of conscience and belief. It is not the case that the voters conscientiously consider themselves responsible for choosing a more deserving person and are not influenced by personal goals and various factors, and ambition and interest in a person or in the victory of one party and the loss of another party are not involved in the nomination of candidates. Or that the attention of the representatives in expressing their opinion is only right and justice. It is never like that. What is less important in these meetings is justice. The best example is the United Nations. Although this organization is at a higher level, most or all of the representatives take personal considerations and political fronts into account when voting. If they “veto” a proposal, if they make a speech and shout and sympathize for the rights of weak nations, it is only political games and black shows that are planned and implemented based on hidden goals. The opinion of the majority, party or non-party, is not always in favor of expediency; Rather, the opinion of independent minorities is often closer to the right, especially if the quality of their work has increased their reliability; For example: in a political or legal issue, even though the experts in politics and law are in the minority, even though their vote is against the majority, it is more influential and popular.
3. Imposition of majority vote: Another objection to this regime is that if the majority, for example 80%, voted for the majority system and the so-called government of the people over the people, and 20% were against it, what is the license to impose the vote of 80% on the other 20%? There is?! In other words, assuming that 100% of the people of a society accepted the majority system or any other system, why are people who reach the age of majority later and are in the minority, condemned to accept that system? This is tyranny and oppression.
5.The desirability of wealth: Most new democracies are capitalist. These democracies favor the owning classes. Voting has become a commodity and the winner of the auction can buy it, and some rich people from the class of marketers or big capitalists openly buy it and eventually take over the governments. They use the press and pulpits to gain their support for their desired policies. “Political parties operate with their money. Most politicians are the tools of the rich. Brice has pointed out the harmful effect of “the power of money in politics” and emphasized that money prevents the work of the executive branch and the legislative branch and corrupts democracy. Marxists have called the American democracy a “democracy of dollar worship”. Lenin said about the right to vote in capitalist democracy: “In a class society, the right to vote is a mirage and an unreal source. What is true is money and capital. In other words, in democracy, the form of the political system is democratic, but its content is the rule of the rich and wealthy. According to Marxists, true democracy will flourish only where capitalism has been destroyed and the disparities between the rich and the poor have been minimized.
5. Governance of the people; Democracy is the rule of the people. In democracy, various issues are decided by majority vote. Cabinets, arbitration boards and courts make decisions by majority vote. Political parties are also made up of groups of people who make decisions by majority vote. Those who vote in one group or in the context of another group lose their true character traits and destroy themselves within the framework of the group.
6. False education; Critics say that democracy leads to poor civic education. Election campaigns are often fraudulent and fake. In telling and showing the facts, there is exaggeration, or it is often distorted. Voters rarely get an accurate picture of the party’s program and the qualities of leadership that demand a position in the legislature or cabinet. In fact, clever demagogues who call people to vote for this candidate or that party with beautiful and resounding but often meaningless and illusory words, are making them forget. Likewise, they create a false sense of equality and mental error among them that only they are the best option to rule the country like everyone else.
7.Government instability; Democracy is stable as long as the people are with it. The unpredictable mind of the common people can turn against the existing government at any moment and overthrow it. Governments, especially in multi-party countries, change overnight. “It has been said that the French change their ministers as quickly as they change their shirts. The average life of a minister in France is only nine months. Henry Mayne believed that since democracy emerged, all forms of government have become more insecure than before.
These were a handful of the disadvantages of democracy written by critics.
