The modern world is said to be a democratic one. However, the definition of the term democracy and that of democracy in the 21st century are not similar in any way. Democracy defines the rule of the majority by the majority. Nevertheless, democracy in the 21st century involves the powerful and minority making decisions for the majority (Geissel Kneuer, and Lauth 2016). This difference brings about issues of what democracy is and what it should mean for the majority. Such arguments have born a new perception that democracy is dead. However, the important question to ask is, has there been any democracy at all?

Nowadays, political power is tied to the individuals in society with money; those born in wealthy families and have access to the most impressive educational institutions in the world, let alone the country. These are the individual’s whose intelligence is said to surpass average standards. In most cases, their parents or close relatives previously held powerful and significant positions in the administrative part of the government. It is unfortunate that such individuals think that power is their birthright, that they alone hold the future of their countrymen in their hands (Munick, 2016). These perception has often made the bourgeoisie look at governments as their inheritance. As such, they make important decisions for the whole nation with their selfish interests at heart rather than the welfare of the people.

Consequently, with such narcissistic individuals, the power and visions of democracy do not succeed. Those who second the rule of such a minority over the will of the majority are indeed enemies of democracy from within the system. The common belief is that power should not be passed through family ties or kinship. Besides, it should not be given to the intelligent individuals from rich and powerful backgrounds. Although there are many fundamental reasons as to why such actions should not be the norm today, sadly, that is what democracy has turned to be in the 21st century.

Passing power rich and those from powerful backgrounds defies the logic of democracy. The fact that these individuals have influential parents or kin and are wealthy beyond standard measures betrays their ability to lead the country in a united vision and mission (Munick, 2016). As history has shown, most of them are bound to become the most corrupt in the government system. Their intelligence will be used in cheating the majority while their wealth will be used to effect influence over intricate policies or laws being made by the government. In most cases, the influence will be levelled towards their selfish motives.

Moreover, most of these individuals often think that leadership qualities come as a matter of intelligence or wealth. Leadership, in the real sense, reigns as a matter of doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason with the welfare of the followers in mind (Geissel et al., 2016). The moment leadership responsibilities pass to the hands of those who lack leadership qualities things are bound to take an unfortunate turn. Such leaders fail to heed their call and prove to be selfish or biased in their decisions. Thus, leadership should be placed upon those who have proved to be up to the talk and have the welfare of the common man at heart.

Thirdly, democracy should take a wide perspective of the majority. However, it is not uncommon to find that few intelligent individuals take it upon themselves to make significant decisions on behalf of the majority. Most of them have been given the mandate by their followers to make such decisions; but in the light of their intelligence, they become oblivious to the needs and wants of the people (Pickel, 2015). They misuse the mandate into translating what the people to what they want. They continue to do significant things or make significant decisions if the resulting situations bear a more resounding benefit to them compared to how the majority will benefit. In such a case, democracy is betrayed, and the people suffer in the hands of these individuals.

The ethical implications of placing leadership in the hands of such individuals have been shown to be detrimental. Leadership is a matter of quality rather than intelligence. Intelligence is not a proof of the existence of leadership qualities since not all intelligent individuals can take it upon themselves to cater to the will of the people. Therefore, it is empirical that the ethical implications resulting from the rule of such individuals not be of negative impact on the lives of the majority (Frederickson and Ghere, 2013). If unfortunately, these implications impact the majority adversely, these individuals ought to be taken out of power. In essence, it is never right to make the majority follow the bourgeoisie who purport to be intelligent and often more learned foolishly. The work of the majority is not to follow blindly but act as employers and masters of those in power while analysing what affects them with a keen eye.

Indeed, democracy is dead. Nevertheless, the situation is not as unfortunate as it seems. There have been few, but successful democratic nations, which indicates that it is possible to achieve democracy. However, as much as it is important for leaders to be of an intelligent nature, they should not be tempted to erode the will of the people to fulfil their selfish motives. The will of citizens, the majority, should always be respected and upheld. The work of elected leaders is to work on ways to achieve the will of the people, and that is true democracy.