My definitions are based on what I assume those words were intended to mean and not how they have been used or interpreted over time. I think Lincoln's definition of democracy as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" pretty much says all that needs to be said. "From each according to ability to each according to need in a system where real estate and the means of production are commonly owned" is a satisfactory explanation for communism. And terrorism is "the use of threats or violence to accomplish a political objective."
Using my definitions... which I challenge anyone to counter... those tyrants listed above did not preside over democracies. As a matter of fact, the U.S. itself doesn't meet Lincoln's definition of Democracy either. It is actually "a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation." The U.S. considers any government that permits corporations to exploit its resources a democracy. Nations unwilling to open their doors to the dubious benefits of such a corporate democracy are labeled either communists and/or terrorists.
The best known and first to be defined "communist nation" never considered itself a communist country. The name it adopted was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics -- knowing that socialism is not communism. The Soviets may have aspired to communism but realized they were far from that stage. Of course, misnomers within the Soviet bloc existed there as well -- ergo, the GDR, the German DEMOCRATIC Republic.
Year after year... when the U.S. and its puppet media were extolling those favored "democracies," those countries were recipients of extensive financial and military aid from their generous sugar daddy, Uncle Sam. In addition, Uncle Sam provided professional training and assistance, compliments of the CIA, for controlling unruly rabble. which, of course, means anyone who was smart enough to see behind the veil of lies and make a stink about it. The diligent graduates of the Shah's SAVAK were samples of what had been achieved. But in spite of Uncle's assistance those governments were unable to survive for very long. In each case their demise resulted from an uprising of their people who defied lying rulers, brutal police, and military or political repression.
On the other hand, those dastardly communist and terrorist governments maintained the support of their people. If such governments were ousted it was by coups supported by external powers, usually the U.S. Their replacements became US-installed "democracies" that met the well-deserved fate just described.
Perhaps my definition (and Lincoln's) of democracy is too limited. Voting in free and fair elections is certainly a characteristic of democracies. Didn't those US-listed democracies qualify? And how could I possibly criticize the U.S.? After all, it holds elections regularly. They are not limited to one political party, and all citizens are encouraged to vote.
Quite true... however, they comply only in form but not in substance. The rhetoric is there... the PR is there... the hoopla is there... but the reality of an authentic choice is nonexistent. Securing a place on the ballot and obtaining fair and ample media exposure is only available to those who have proven their
loyalty to the elite.
Elections are nothing more than charades these days. More and more people know it. That's why the winning presidential vote count never exceeds the number of eligible non-voters. Yet every party, the media, employers, unions, educational and religious organizations unanimously urge the public to vote. I have never heard any source in the U.S. hint that not voting might be a reasonable and logical option. Although non-voters outnumber the winners their existence is ignored. The winner's share is always the percentage of those who voted rather than those who were eligible. It's too embarrassing in this hyped-up,
supposedly wonderful democracy to acknowledge that so many have lost confidence. Just imagine what numbers the non-voters might amass if there was a well organized and provocative campaign to get people to boycott elections!
Or, better yet... a campaign to get people to demand Truth, Honor, and Justice from our elected officials.
I sincerely believe that democracy should represent the voice of the people. But getting somebody to pull levers or make check marks once a year after being barraged with smear ads and grandstanding by the mass media is a weak manifestation of democracy. When people go out of their way repeatedly to expend money, picket, protest, write letters, and at times defy the authorities... that to me is evidence of democracy. Whenever one of those supposed democratic rulers was toppled it was in my mind a triumph of democracy. The Will of The People won out over those who were judged unfit to be in power.
WRITE MORE!