Liberal constitutional authoritaniasm is a better solution for third world countries. Democracy before guaranteed freedoms creates an environment in which dictatorial leaders pose as democratic leaders. For primary examples of the failings of this Democracy only idealogy all one has to do is look to Iran or Venezuala. Each have "democratically" elected governments, but in neithe are rights guaranteed. They leaders are elected, but only from a pre-determined body as in the case of Iran, or they become radicalized or reactionary as was the case in Venezuela.

In a democracy, once the majority of people realize they can get together and dictate what everyone must do as long as they have the most people going along with what they believe,it soon becomes like a dictatorship but by group. The USA is a representative republic made up of rules and laws that has the checks and balances of a voting public that can vote out a representative they feel does not represent the views of the people.

Example: In a democracy 51% of the people vote that the other 49% must do all of the work.

The founders of America despised the thought of a democracy because once someone realized they could take from others just by being in the majority, this would ruin a country.

Democracies DO NOT provide checks and balances. Pure Democracies follow the will of the majority of the populace regardless of the morality or implication of such decisions.

Those who put the United States forward as examples of democracies do not understand the nature of our government. We do not have direct elections of our leaders, nor do we have purely "democratic" legislation. If we did, it is clear that countries Coastal Urban cores would dictate national policy to the detriment of the nation. Slavery would have been abolished at the onset of the Nation rather than nearly 100 years later, and women would have gained the right to vote much earlier in our history. That said, African Americans would not have made even the minimal gains of the 60's and 70's.

The American system of gov't works because it is representational. The House, Senate, and the President; each represents a unique overlapping constituency. Combined with the constitutional safeguards provided by the Supreme Court the county is governed with a complex vision - one that is often clouded by selfishness and partisanship, but one that is inevitably built on negotiation and compromise.

no, democracy is not the best form of government for third world countries because democracy is a "luxury". and where people are dying for bread how can they afford a much expensive luxury. as we know that hunger can never be molded in formalities and democracy is really a formality.

as we know that democracy needs some prerequisites which can only be afforded by the rich and developed nations.

indeed it is inappropriate for third world countries because politicians the so called 'democratic leaders" exploit the masses for thier own interests by alluring them.