Democracy or life?

Last autumn, major military operations against militants of the terrorist organization ISIS began in two countries of the Middle East almost simultaneously. The Syrian-Russian coalition and US military power attacked the militant gangs in Syrian Aleppo and Mosul in Iraq.

From the standpoint of a layman, the scale and the stated goals of these attacks are alike as two peas in a pod. However, the Spokesperson for the US Department of State John Kirby considers such comparison to be insulting. According to him, two military "dictators" - Assad and Putin -exterminate the peaceful opposition and civilian population in Syria, while the Air Forces of 66 countries exclusively attack only terrorists in Iraq.
If we ignore the lie that has become second nature to the American officials and military, we would have to admit that Kirby is relatively right: there is a difference. The Americans and their allies valiantly overcome the difficulties that they have created in Iraq by overthrowing if not much gentle but quite moderate regime of Saddam Hussein.
For all its power, America and the Americans are not willing to learn from their mistakes. Just in the last 25 years, they tried to "bring democracy" or rather impose the convenient for them regimes in Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Obviously, overseas elites consider that bringing democracy to a country means its massive bombardment (derisively referred to as "humanitarian") and provoking a civil war.

But what is the end result? Except for the poor fragments that are left in the place of former Yugoslavia, all other exposed to "democratization" countries are lying in rampant devastation and chaos, but the real democracy, in the sense of government by the people is far from that.
Moreover, the actions of "liberators" in the East led to tragic consequences for themselves. Mujahedeen, fostered to fight against the Soviet Union and socialist government in Afghanistan, turned into Al-Qaeda led by the CIA agent Osama bin Laden, which staged a terrible terrorist attack against the US on September 11, 2001. The defeat of the Taliban gave birth to the terrible mutant ISIS. Paris shooting, attack in Nice, explosions in Boston and dozens of other terrorist attacks is the inevitable price to pay for mistakes of the foreign policy of the American elites and controlled by them European authorities.

Why does the noble goal of democratization bear such terrible fruits? The answer to this question was provided by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who as far back as in 2012 wrote in his article: "True democracy is not created overnight or copied from the external model. Society must be ready for democratic mechanisms. The majority of the population must feel that they are citizens and be ready to devote attention, time and effort to participating in the process of government. Democracy works where people are willing to invest in it."
We must not forget that societies in different countries differ not only in their religious preferences but also in traditional values, mentality and the level of development. It can’t be denied that even in the developed countries not all citizens understand the meaning and benefits of democracy. Look at the outcome of plebiscites in European countries: only about 30-40% of those eligible to vote do so, and it is still considered as a good result.
Experts give two explanations for the sluggish political activity of Europeans and Americans. The first is that the citizens ignore the opportunity to influence the management of the country through elections when things are going well, because they believe that the rest of the voters will make everything right without their involvement.
The second explanation is much sadder. In countries with a centuries-old democratic traditions voter ceased to believe that his vote, for whoever it is given, will be able to change his life for the better. Whether you vote or not, you will still get same representatives of elite clans that repeatedly succeed each other in elected positions over the centuries. And if the ruler would be Medici or Borgia, he still would primarily care for his clan.
An ordinary man has no hopes in this situation. The poor will continue getting poorer and the rich will be getting richer. And individual success stories told in press, which serve as an evidence of the existence of "equal society", resemble the story of a carrot before the donkey nose, who hauls a cart uphill.
Necessarily, the question arises: is democracy good enough to serve as a universal world order? On the one hand, democracy is a government by the people. However, a government presumes, first of all, a certain level of intelligence, which, unfortunately, not everyone has. And, secondly, power has to assume a certain degree of responsibility, which is most unattractive for common people.
However, democracy does not guarantee even a minimum of well-being for most members of society, not to mention the prosperity. This belief was wide-spread due to bitter experience among disillusioned hundreds of millions of inhabitants of the former USSR, who had been dreaming of pluralism and freedom of speech - the constituent elements of a democratic society in the interpretation of their Western "teachers".
In my opinion, a new universal ideology should constitute a concept based on the right to life. Just think about the following: in the heat of the democratization, the United States and its allies (that are not just various coalitions of different countries but the gangs of terrorists and militants trained and armed by Special Forces) killed hundreds of thousands of people. We will never know what brilliant scientists, poets and artists the humanity has lost.
If the goal of those advanced states was not the establishment of an abstract "democracy" in a single country but the implementation of the right to life for its citizens, the outcome would have been totally different. Nobody would need the aircraft carriers and bombers, missiles and drones but schools, hospitals, modern and affordable medicines instead. The means of improving the intellectual abilities would be in demand. It is not enough to feed and cure a man with an outlook of the Stone Age: he would not be able to comprehend all the benefits of civilization. On the contrary, he would be less useful than a cow in the stall.
We, at the FIDE, have purposefully set our goal: «One billion chess players - one billion clever people». After all, the stronger is the human intellect, the more challenges it can address. Clever leaders of a country will not wage war for the sake of something unimportant. An intellectual community of science and industry will invent the instruments and devices, which we are unable to even dream of today. And in the end, what is the use of a stupid mankind in the Universe?

When mankind will get wiser, the democracy will become as natural as washing. There will be no need to pour media mud on the opponents, exchange of the sanctions and accuse opponents of violating the democratic norms. There will be no need to lie with the test tubes containing the samples of alleged chemical weapons. And there will be no need to bomb anyone.
I have recently established a fund, which, along with the promotion of chess, intends to promote these ideas. We shall begin with the United States – the leading country, which guides people around the world. Today, they have a lot of problems caused by misunderstanding of democracy and a formal approach to the organization of democracy.
According to my observations, the power in the United States was seized by bureaucrats in the worst sense of the term. This is bad for the Americans and for the rest of humanity. The trouble is that, having a lot of power, many representatives of the bureaucratic caste are far behind the level of intelligence of the average earthling. Well, let’s try to engage them in chess.
Of course, this plan is made for not very distant but still the future. As of today, we have the more important goal. It is pointless to talk about the change of civilizational ideology, when almost a quarter of the world is indulged in wars. First of all, we need to stop at least the most violent ones.
I believe it is more logical to start bringing peace to the humanity with Syria. To this end, I propose that the next World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates should be held in Damascus. These summits are held every year on the initiative of ex-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The subjects of discussions are global problems - the eradication of poverty and renunciation of nuclear weapons, and the resulting documents become the roadmaps for their solution.
However, is there a more important task than the fight against terrorism today? Syria is at the forefront of this fight. In addition, we must not forget that the Syrian land is the cradle of the world civilization and a crossroads of three religions: there are not only the roots of Christianity and Islam, but also one of the oldest Buddhist temples in the world.
I think there would be nothing surprising if the spiritual leaders of religious denominations and the heads of the leading countries will attend the Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Damascus. I am sure that such a representative conference would help to resolve the Syrian conflict.
So, there is a possibility that the humanity will be able to determine the path of its development at exactly such a summit, by having decided once and for all what is more important: some amorphous "democratic" procedures and declarations or the right to life for every person.