nepe, i was thinking about the outcome when i wrote what i wrote. but you bring up an interesting point about the method, which the critique of democracy does not deal with. i was more concerned about the end result. since it is probably more interesting, let's see… i am still operating within the HYPOTHETICAL world. the biggest probelm is not really the method in my example. hypotehtically speakign, if the remaining 51% realize that they are better off governed by the 49%, and ALLOW this to happen, there is no problem.....even if the 49% manipulates the mass to serve teh common good, some people might still consider this to be a fair outcome. it will be like the 49% acting like "concerned parents" looking after the welbeing of their children. Lemme give you another simple example to illustrate my point. Suppose a husband and wife, and their 3 kids go out to dinner. The kids insist on ordering some dish that the parents know will give them an upset stomach. Ignoring the kids’ pleas and moans the parents go the undemocratic way and order something more healthy for everyone. The parents can be undemocratic because they have more power (and the paycheck). In this case, the method is simple exercise of power. And in this particular example, the use of power to suppress democracy is justified. (please don’t quote this last sentence out of context) It seems like you are extrapolating this to current real world situations, while I was merely engaging in a mental exercise. This cannot be applied to most current REAL WORLD settings because 1) teh assumption that 49% are intelligent well-wishers and 51% are dumb and always make the wrong decisions is usually invalid. 2) like you mentioned, even if the earlier assumption holds, it is hard to determine who constitute the 49% 3) the remaining 51% would want to have a voice in the government or 4) that if you coerce/manipulate the 51%, you are being undemocratic. (which is a joke, cos the rich lobbyists are always manipulating the democratic machinery and taking advantage of the poor even in industrialized nations). one may argue also that having control over one's own governance through the democratic machinery (viz, majority voting) and achieving a sub-optimal societal outcome is preferable to being governed by 49% and achieving an optimal outcome. The democratic process certainly seems simple and in most cases, more equitable than the alternatives. I do not claim to have an answer or a better alternative. If I did, I would be world famous by now. bidwan, in my definition, education empowers one to make informed decisions for the welbeing of oneself, one's family, and ideally, one's society and teh world. a person who is blinded by zealous devotion to any particular individual, and is unwilling to reason and to question one's preexisting beliefs may be literate, but is surely not educated. at least IMO.