Critics why Democracy is Best or Not best Form of Government

Democracy comes from a Greek word ‘Demokratia’. In Greek ‘demos’ means people and ‘kratia’ means rule. So, democracy literally means people’s rule. Abraham Lincoln opined that “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people”.
democracy is arguably the best form of government in terms of guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of the majority. In the older democracies, America, France and Britain, the ballot box freed society from the power of the monarchy and aristocracy, in ‘rights-setting  acts of epochal importance.
Democracy as widely believed is the best form of government around the globe. This accounts to why its popularity has continued to permeate all corners of the world. Eventhrough some analysts have opined that the worst form of democracy is better than the best form of military rule. It's a form of government on which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights. And because were having that kind of government ,we are free to express our ideas ,opinions, suggestions or comments to anyone or somebody.
According to Plato had his own classification: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Anarchy, and Tyranny, and in his "Republic", he had essentially endorsed Aristocracy as the best and ideal form
The Plato quotation above instigate to questioned if the democracy is really the best for government, and lead to ask the following questions, 
=>Do we  think because of that having a democracy, we can do what we want?
=>Do we also think that having that kind of government makes us to freely communicate with others?
=> Stabilize the relationship towards each other?
=> How can we have a peaceful country when we- people are easy to judge and express those words without noticing that some people are too sensitive?
=> Why don't we understand some people and respect them before saying or uttere some words to them? 
=>Why don't we apply the concept of ethics of communicat in our daily life?

Aristotle gives account lapses evolve in the democratic world process because it don't really represent the interests of the minority. 
To him Aristotle Monarchy always prevarted to Tyranny 
Also Aristocracy always prevarted to   Oligarchy 
Finally Rule of all.....: Politeia (Polity) always prevarted to Democracy
Thus Aristotle affirmed that polity is more preferable to democracy
Let's look at some modern examples...

PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS feature a combination of 3 systems:

MONARCHY - the single Executive President, assisted by his cabinet who do as he says

ARISTOCRACY - the Congress (House + Senate)

DEMOCRACY - the people who vote for Congress and the people who vote for the Electors in the Electoral College who will vote for President

But in the Presidential Form of Government, there too much focus on the MONARCHY, because once elected, the Executive essentially has free reign on executive matters, pertaining to the implementation of policies. The President is not accountable to the Legislature.
For instance, scholar has opined that democracy is really evil and that the Philippines should become a Communist state? Not really, I don't support a despotic reign either. The problem of the Philippines is not democracy but the kind of democracy that ruins the country. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people and of the people. In the Philippines, the problem is that majority of the people are stupid people who think they are smart and the smart ones who are frequently put down by the stupid people. I have experienced it that whenever I try to post an intellectual post and quote intellectual people, they say I am stupid and that the people I quote are stupid. It's incredibly funny on how people who call me stupid may turn out to be high school dropouts and losers in life.
In conclusion, eventhough democracy have gained relevance in the contemporary world, there are a number of issues that the system of government failed to address, issue such as elections malpractice, corruption, fear of minority, in equal distribution of resources, duplicate of power and waste of nations resources. but in our own perspective this system remain very effective in preventing outbreak of world in the international community. 

"The world foreign Policy is Rested on Keg of Gun Power"

Despite this advantage, foreign policy analysis has maintained a rather strong focus on U.S. foreign policy and on crisis decision making. Several scholars in foreign policy analysis have remarked that “foreign policy decision making in the absence of crisis-related factors has gone largely unexplored.”25 Indeed, analysis of economic foreign policy making, decision making regarding foreign aid and development cooperation, the negotiation of international environmental treaties, and a range of other subjects remain a small proportion of the total volume of studies in foreign policy analysis. As the world becomes more interconnected, it will be important to begin to explore foreign policy making on subjects beyond crises more earnestly.

There is much more to be said about interdependence than the simple definition previously provided. Interdependence suggests that the relationsbetween states are characterized by mutuality and equality. But we have already seen that states are not equal. They differ in terms of size as well as resources. These differences have consequences for the interactions  between states.

 

Ultimately, size and power are about the degree to which states are constrained in the range of foreign policy  options available to their decision makers. 

The foreign policies of such states are circumscribed by the limitations imposed not only by their size but also by their geographic location and the structure of their relations with other  states. That brings us to the subject of interdependence. 

For Instance, Canada, which is a member of the G8, is a self-described  middle power. Its decision makers began to use this concept to describe t heir role in the international environment, Middle powers are states that t can wield a measure of influence, albeit not through the projection of military might. Consider, for instance, the role Norway played in the negotiations between representatives of Israel and the Palestinians that culminated in the Oslo Accords of 1993. Middle powers are usually affluent states that  employ their resources to foster peace and to lessen global economic  inequality. In addition to Canada and Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden have employed this label. The leaders of these states have at times characterized their countries as “like minded” and have acted as norm  entrepreneurs in the international environment