George Bernard Shaw said that "democracy is a mechanism which guarantees that we won't be governed any better than we deserve". It wouldn't actually be so bad it that were true ...
Let's imagine for a second that free elections would be held at a planetary level, to host a global government. The democratic principle one-man/one vote would bring to power a Chinese-Indian coalition. The latter would find that the West is far richer than the East and in order to ensure its re-election - would initiate policies for redistributing that wealth. This exercise in imagination was proposed by Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hope, a self-appointed "social theorist of anarchic capitalism", who concluded that democracy is a mechanism for redistributing revenues and wealth, through which the poor majorities are trying to get rich on the back of the wealthy minorities.
In reality, the world is not that globalized, democracy only truly works in a few countries, and redistribution will only occur between countries whose standards aren't significantly different. But, most importantly, it is obvious that redistribution only occurs out of the interest, on the initiative and to the extent that the rich, i.e. the powerful, who expand their "club", because they understand that it is worth it to bear the cost of multiplying and strengthening their allies, in order to access more power and riches at the expense of the poorer clubs. In fact, reality only has apparently is only formally and to a very small extent related to democracy.
The European Union is a club which perfectly illustrates this thesis, and the Greek crisis has fully proven this, by letting the masks fall. How can you pretend you are a democracy, while at the same time oppose a referendum?!? The word democracy means the power of the people, and the referendum is the most direct way for the people to express
