It's a common misconception in the Western World to regard democracy as a value per se. The all-important question is not whether the majority of a country's population has elected their leaders, or whether they have come to power by other means.

The all-important question is: how is our world, how are our societies shaped. If we leave this decision to the people who are called on to elect a president or a parliament, we get, especially in Third World countries, a leadership that forms our society in accordance to the opinions of a by-and-large uneducated population which is more interested in their petty jealousies than a sensible design of society.

If we want a better world, and better societies, we need groups of people with a modern science-based coherent ideology and the courage to take the leadership of a country… and not let this leadership slip out of their hands because a (possibly US-inspired) opposition tries to stir up chaos.

Even though the US, with a definite interest in destabilizing the rest of the world, propagates that the legitimacy of a government lies solely in being elected in a direct democratic process, legitimacy much rather lies in providing good government.

And though it may sound funny to those who have been brainwashed by US propaganda, wise leadership that has not been democratically elected, can, in many countries of the world, provide better government than democratically elected populists who thrive on exploiting the sentiments of hate and jealousy of large parts of a country's population.

Strong leadership with a corresponding vision can provide a high degree of personal freedom to a country's people (unlike, for example, elected Islamic theocrats of the Iranian style), and rapid economic development (as seen in the case of China and prior to that even in Suharto's Indonesia). It also can ensure much higher level of safety for about everybody and keep both the mafia and preachers of hatred at bay who would get elected in a democracy.