[AIG]

Democracy is great in theory, but it's been no panacea for today's Third World democracies, which are a lot more mired in general backwardness than China. The success or failure of a democracy seems to be whether it has developed a large, majority middle-class population to begin with who, in any democratic election, will vote for politicians favoring capitalist policies like low taxes over socialist politicians who tend to try to block all capitalist reforms. Third World democracies have mostly poor populations so they naturally elect more socialist Gephardt-type politicians than free traders. S. Korea, Taiwan, etc. all first developed their economies and developed majority middle-class populations under one-party, authoritarian rule over the past 50 years before adopting full-fledged democracy in just the last 5 years. America and France during the American and French Revolutions had majority middle-class populations which rebelled against high taxes, and these countries' revolutions were led by their middle-class or "bourgeoisie" classes.

[kennyo]

Democracy is great in theory...

Says who?

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.-Madison,Federalist #10.

You yourself provide the classic,textbook case against "democracy",with a hindsight not afforded Mr.Madison.

America and France during the American and French Revolutions had majority middle-class populations which rebelled against high taxes, and these countries' revolutions were led by their middle-class or "bourgeoisie" classes.

The American revolution was specifically for a republican form of government,whereas the French was of the "democratic" variety,i.e.,one of "turbulence and contention...and as short in (it's) life as violent in (it's) death.We got the Constitutional Convention and they got the Reign of Terror.We got Washington and they got Napolean.They had no great thinkers like Madison,who identified the innate difficulty of drawing a government on men,who would at the same time be legislators and subjects of the same legislation.

I've often wondered how those who believe that this country is a "democracy" deal with the veto,or the US senate(filibuster and federal representation,e.g.),or the electoral college,among other unique,republican(small r) aspects of the American system of government.