desist from outlining in response to "democracy" etc. It was a "democratic" Brit state whom people tout as being "democratic" from stone age, ran Kenyan Nazi-style genocide and concentration camps. The queries on "democracy" are never raised for them. Or the "anti-fascists" who mumble and hem and haw when asked on Gulags. ("oh it became necessary in a specific global situation when Russians/communists/Soviets were fighting such "fascistic" forces as US" - no need to be factual though on the reality of the relation between UK/USA and Russia in the heyday of Gulags)
Every "undemocratic" measure is justified if it can be claimed to have been done in "national interest" and if it was by Brits, or communists or Islamists. Suddenly the multiplicity-multifaced, multicultural, multi-stranded, not-one-narrow-thread-like-HIndutvavadis who "deny and conflate classes/castes together into a fascistic mass/volk" - secular+democratic+antifascists hide behind a monochromatic "national interest" to emulate the very fascistis/undemocratic practcies they lambast in their perceived obstacles.
So you may have to give it a "good Muslim" communist tinge - and then everything will be okay: no questions on "democracy" will be raised.
You misunderstood. You and I are saying the same thing. I just said all of what you said, by simply putting the word "democracy" in quotes in my post previous to yours. That said it all.
I was not questioning RoyG's intent or his end goal, which I completely share. I was simply asking him, how he saw us getting from "here" to "there" within the constraints that we have, and without indulging in leaps of faith or wishful thinking.
Yes, we have to "evolve" our "democracy" to "customize" it to our present circumstance and the goals we all want accomplished. The question is, who will take the lead and how will it be done ? In other words, who will bell the cat, so to speak. That is why I asked RoyG if he was thinking that military could do it.