Force-feeding democracy will lead not to reform but to radicalization.

So a direct democracy will lead to a very inefficient running of the state.

But in academic things, I feel too much democracy led to disaster.

Wait a few years, democracy in a place like Sudan will lead to anarchy.

A property-owning democracy, it was argued, also leads to the improvement of the housing stock since people take a greater pride in homes they own.

Where, they would ask, did it go wrong; how can democracy ever lead to that?

If democracy leads to inefficient political infighting, should it be sacrificed in the interest of economic well-being?

There are those who say that democracy leads to chaos, or conflict, or terror.

The assumption was that democracy and markets would lead to prosperity in some sort of automatic, if gradual, way.

What do you do when democracy leads ineluctably to chaos?