Seeing the level of education in my country which is very low compared to other democratic countries, it seems that this nation is not ready to run a democracy. Moreover, democracy is imported directly from the mecca of democratic countries, namely the United States.
It's no secret that my country adheres to a United States-style democracy or what is commonly called a liberal democracy. Differences in culture and level of education should be the benchmark of a political system. Indeed, US-style democracy is quite ideal, but is it suitable to be implemented in our country? the answer is not necessarily.
One man one vote. 50+1 reigns supreme over 50-1. Those are the principles of liberal democracy. This principle is not by the original culture in our country which was successfully explored by the "Founding Fathers" namely cooperation.
The unequal level of education makes this system less than ideal. The analogy is this; "A flock of sheep will not choose a wolf as a leader and vice versa."
The majority of the population here have not been well educated, because that is what they choose must also suit them. That way, don't be surprised if the president-elect in my country is not able to advance a country because those who vote are also the lower middle class.
If the level of education here is high with the majority of the population being undergraduates or at least high school graduates, surely the elected president will be a president who has sufficient credibility to lead. Because sheep cannot choose wolves as their leaders and vice versa.
One man one vote does sound very fair, but to produce a leader with very good quality I think it is difficult. I agree with Socrates, that democracy is only suitable for intelligent people or opened in intellectual spaces, not displayed in public places like this.
How can a person who knows nothing be lumped in with an expert or a professor? I think everyone agrees if the experts take care of their respective fields. But, what if all state affairs feel entitled to take care of it?
The leader is a representation of the one being led, if the one being led is a sheep, certainly, the leader is also a sheep. People in my country are currently sick, certainly, the born leader will also be sick. With the one man one vote system in Indonesia, there will be no tiger leaders, because most of the voters are sheep.
In a democracy, the voice of the people is the voice of God. The slogan is from the people, by the people, for the people, it sounds charming indeed. However, the fruit does not fall far from the tree. If the input is rotten, the output is not far from rotten.
This does not mean that democracy is not good and must be replaced with a caliphate or communist system. Not! This democratic system is ideal if it is run by ideal people.
Improving the people who run the government is a priority urgency, one way is through quality education. Maybe in the next few years, society in my country will still not be much different from today.
The best trees are the ones that grow the longest. Education may take a long time to fix this country, but it is a step more promising than revolution. Revolution is a quick way to overhaul the system. At first, it might go well, but over time the revolution gave birth to a new regime that was no less cruel. History has recorded it.
Ah, I don't understand anything about politics let alone the state. This writing is just a thought that comes to mind before going to sleep because I can't sleep, finally, the thought becomes writing. Maybe it's nothing to ignore, just a joke.
I agree that revolution only creates a new regime. This is the same as what happened to the soviet union