Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

Just to clarify, this is the debate topic: "Democracy in a country with a majority population of uneducated and poverty stricken citizens whereby government is voted in by the people is not successful because the majority who vote for a party are at high risk to manipulation." In R2 you said: "You state that considering the U.S. is irrelevant and you decide to steer the debate towards 3rd world countries." - The reason I state that the U.S. in this debate is irrelevant is because as I said "their average "literacy" levels are of what you would expect in a first world country" You argued in R1 that "So, even if your statement is true, then the opposite will be too which is that the country with a majority of the population is educated whereby government is voted in by the people is successful because the majority who vote for a party are at a low risk of manipulation." Let me explain to you why you can't just assume that the opposite scenario would hold true if my statement is true. You essentially claim that the US democratic system is NOT SUCCESSFUL since it is fact that the majority of the US is educated (or using your average literacy alternative if it makes you happy) and therefore it is almost certain that the voting majority are not so prone to manipulation of the government (through bribes or free give-aways) and blatant lies about realistic nation performance that well informed, "educated" people would be aware of and would indiffer to. Now, from that I take it you claim that the US is NOT successful. Although US may have some corruption (through earmarks, SOPA, net netrality acts; which you said in R1 & R2) you cannot say that the US is therefore UNSUCCESSFUL (a failure). It may be true that they aren't 100% successful but they are definitely more successful than unsuccessful. The US has one of the highest GDP's in the world and an unemployment rate of 6% for a start so one can easily say that the US is more successful than unsuccessful in running the economy with its form of government influencing it (Democracy as you claim) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org... & http://en.wikipedia.org...) Also, by the way, the U.S. is not a democracy. It is a republic, also known as a representative democracy. For these reasons your inclusion of the US to try to prove my argument wrong, and the way you brought it in as a case of an opposite scenario; cannot be used against my argument and becomes irrelevant to this debate. I also did not "steer the debate towards 3rd world countries," I merely tried to clear up the confusion of what "countr[ies] with a majority population of uneducated and poverty stricken citizens" meant. "Developing countries" is also a more simplistic word. I only meant to make it easier for the readers to comprehend and let them think specifically of the population's average education or literacy levels when considering the topic. In R2 you said: "The reason why I steered the debate towards diversity issues was because of the belief that having opposing views is what's causing this "corruption." It's each party striving for their own political agendas that causes conflicts, not if one is educated or not." - I completely agree with you that "each party striving for their own political agendas" can cause conflicts. However, receiving a proper education and being informed of problems in the country - problems which heavily stem from the current government's incompetence and capitalisation on public ignorance through poor service delivery and getting away with corruption (while still being able to convince the masses that they don't) - ensures that you understand why these issues arise. In developed (or high average literacy level) countries, these problems are noted by the public and alter their views to such a high extent simply because it would be well known to the public eye ( high majority of them) that the current government is doing a disservice to the country. As a result, even people with diverse views that support whatever agendas the current government have, would look to oust the current government if it fails to such a dreadful extent (to the extent you would class it as "unsuccessful). This is why diversity among voters doesn't become such an important factor for who one would vote for come election time in these instances, it is how well people are informed about the country, their level of literacy and understanding of economic performance (basic things like GDP and national unemployment rate), how exposed they are to media (and it's exposing of government debacles which happen very often in developing countries on average), etc. Let me give an example like you have... let's take South Africa for instance: The general national elections took place earlier this month and for many months before it there were continuous media stories about the president of South Africa stealing tax payers' money to build himself his own personal mansion. A report by the national public protector - a huge part of the constitution and democracy - exposed the president and found him to have stolen R246 million ($23.78m, 14.1m Pounds) from the public to use it for wrongful purposes and ordered him to repay a "substantial portion" of it (effectively bankrupting him). Basically Jacob Zuma, SA president, laughed it off and said it wasn't him who built his own house!?!? Who did then?! The worrying thing is this amount lost through corruption is only a small portion of corruption lost every year in South Africa, leading to stagflation in the economy as the country produces less and depends on increasingly more imports as ministers in the running government are picked by connections (friends) rather than expertise in their fields. The government's policy like BBBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) which is focused to promote previously disadvantaged people in South Africa (non-white skinned receive these benefits) and to establish more of them in businesses is a policy that, if implemented correctly, would uplift the poverty stricken citizens. Guess what? It is an utter failure of disgraceful note and the results are a few of the most connected "blacks" to the goverment officials benefit hugely from this policy. The reason is because the government do not implement the policy correctly and pocket most money they receive through taxpayers. I mention this policy in particular because this policy is the most relevent in uplifting the majority of the nation who need uplifting - this failure is highly documented in the media and is common knowledge to the well educated citizens of South Africa (hence they do not use their vote to try vote them back in power). If the majority knew about all the many failures of the current goverment would they honestly vote them back in? If they were connected to news of what was happening in the country would they still vote them back in? They are easily manipulated, therefore, by false stories the campaigning government tells them so they do not know, the majority who decide the countries fate through votes cannot vote with appropriate knowledge. It is sad but it is the scenerio that South Africa and other developing countries face... The consequences? Continual economic decline, increased unemployment, less investor confidence, more poverty as population growth continues to rise at alarmingly high levels the country can't provide for, increased crime, higher HIV/AIDS prevalence, etc. This is my argument.