Whole world is covered with fake democracy

Before we can determine if the major democracies of the world are "fake" (meaning they don't work as intended, or that the government is no longer effective in its duties), we must first define what democracy is. Put simply, Democracy is a system of government in which the people, meaning the citizens, hold power either directly or indirectly. There are two types of democracy. It's important to know them in order to determine if a government is a "true" democracy. They are as follows: 1) Direct Democracy - Democracy in which the people, meaning citizens, vote directly on issues and the majority of votes win. 2) Indirect Democracy(Representative Democracy) - Democracy in which the people elect public officials that share their views to vote on issues in favor of their interests. Now that we have defined what democracy is, we can discuss whether or not the three nations you listed are "fake" democracies. 1) The United States of America (USA) To begin with, you're actually wrong about the President's opinion being supreme. The President's opinion has no power unless he signs a bill which is in line with his opinion. But with Congress's gridlock, this is hardly ever the case. That is not to say it doesn't happen, it just means that working with Congress to get a bill passed is extremely difficult. It took Barack Obama many years to get his Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed, and even now it is being debated over whether or not it should be changed/repealed/replaced. Secondly, the United States is not a direct democracy, that is to say, the majority's opinion is not always the one that is implemented. The Founders of the Constitution feared a direct democracy, for they believed it would lead to a "tyranny of the mob", where whatever the majority of people want, that's what they get. The problem with that, is that the majority opinion may not always be right. If the majority of people believed that, for example, slavery should be reinstated, would that make it right? Of course not, and that is why the Founders didn't instate a direct democracy. 2) The Russian Federation (Russia) Russia's democracy what you could call an authoritarian democracy, in that it places most of its power in the hands of the President. This is fine as long as the people want this. The problem is not with the type of democracy, but with the way the power is distributed. By definition, in a democracy the power is supposed to be in the hands of the people (either directly or indirectly), but there is evidence that the current President, Vladimir Putin, has tampered with Russia's own elections. This places power in his hands more so than the people. If the people can't actually choose who their president is, then they have no power because their interests cannot be accurately represented. In this case, there is an argument to be made for a "fake" democracy. 3) The Republic of India (India) India's democracy is an indirect democracy like Russia and the US (although the US is more of a mix). There are so many problems with India's democracy that I'll concede this one to you (as well as Russia). So while I agree that there may be in a sense "fake" democracies, I don't believe we should therefore get rid of them altogether. While Russia may not be a perfect democracy, at least it's better now than it was during the rule of Communism. While the United States may not be able to get things done as quickly as we would like, at least we've been able to solve our problems and progress forward slowly. As for India, things may look bleak, and they might truly be, but nevertheless, it's better to have that than to have the British Empire exploiting it.