Etymology: 
 

In doing so, westerners have purposely set the tone for the justifications that will follow.  They proceed in their methodology by buttressing their arguments on "would-be" historical facts, and in doing so, to bestow legitimacy on their arguments. 

But what if this foundation is not what it seems to be?  Would this argument then lose legitimacy and falter?  Or would it remain valid? 

Can we pass a sound  judgment on a case based on a law that is misinterpreted or perhaps even non-existent (not on the record) ? 

This is an important question I hope we can answer it in advance. 

By all accounts, the term is referred to the Late Latin, which first appears in c.1343 A.D., and not before. The word allegedly came from two combined Greek words Demos + kratia which are found in Aristotle's writings. 
 

Here is where the problem begins. 

Fact # 1 

During the thirteen years (335-322 B.C.) which Aristotle spent as teacher at the Lyceum,  he composed the greatest number of his writings. Imitating the example of his master, he placed in the hands of his pupils "Dialogues" in which his doctrines were expounded in somewhat popular language. 

Fact # 2

Unfortunately the original copies of all of Aristotle's  writings were destroyed during the burning of the library at Alexandria, and the Church's suppression of pagan philosophy, this meant that Aristotle's writings were not available in Latin in the early Middle Ages. 
 

Fact # 3 

In contrast, Aristotle's writings were read throughout the Islamic world, and the Arab philosopher  Ibn Rushd (Averroes) commented extensively on them.  The original Greek copy has long been long lost (in the burning of the library at Alexandria), fortunately the texts had been translated and were passed through the Syriac (al-Suwriyaniah) versions before being re-translated into Arabic in the 8th c. A.D.

By the 12th century there was a great revival of interest in Aristotle in Christian Europe.  The great translator William of Moerbeke (born about 1215; died in 1286), who was an Orientalist, and a philosopher,  as well as one of the most distinguished men of letters of the thirteenth century,  undertook a complete translation of the works of Aristotle(c. 1260) at the request of Thomas Aquinas. This was translated  from  the Arabic version of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in order to produce the Late Latin translations. Aristotle's works were commented on by Thomas Aquinas and became the standard philosophical approach of the high and later middle ages. 

Fact # 4

The Greek word "Demos" contrary to what it is advanced to be is defined as : 
 

(source:  The Vocabulary of the Indo-European Institutions by the famous Indo-European linguist Emile Beneviste. 
 

Which cognates with the Classical Arabic term: Damm (see below definition in Lane's Dictionary) 
 
 

While the suffix -cracy (kratia) is none other than the literal translation of the Arabic word Kursiy in Ibn Rushud's, version.  The term refers to power and dominion, as in Kursiy al-Hukum ,or even simply as in the name of the Qur'anic verse 'Ayat al-Kursiy  which by the way has been wrongly translated by westerners as verse of The Throne!  Actually it has nothing to do with `arsh  (the correct Arabic word for throne) or even a regular kursiy in the sense of a chair.  Further kursiy (chair)  is not an original Classical Arabic word, rather a loan word  from the sister Aramaic language), In Classical Arabic language of the Qur'an, kursiy is not a siriyr and/or kanabah as translated by Westerners!  Rather it refers to God's Dominion (see JPEG below): 
 
 

Fact # 5

Aristotle's understanding of the concept of democracy: A form of government in the Greek city-state, which was known as polis (cf. Classical Arabic:  balad).   This form of government was base on a relatively small, self-sufficient, citizenry, with an elite class at the top.  While the rest  (the majority) of the people were the workforce consisting of slaves, manual laborers, and women.  Aristotle's world was made up of city-states, and his political theories worked from the assumption that the polis was the most sensible form of government. 

Is that the model of Democracy with which we are been bombarded today?

In conclusion, I reiterate the question which was advanced in the beginning of this post. 

Can we pass a sound judgment on a case based on a law that is misinterpreted or perhaps even non-existent (i.e.not on the records)? 

If  yes,  then why the historical dressing up and the hype by westerners for a such an elusive term? 

So what is then "Democracy"? 
 
 

Definition: 

In practice it is all about a certain "elite power" that takes over the government and rules under fictitious slogans and pretenses. They might apply the "equal sharing the power" concept exclusively among themselves, but always flatly denied it to the rest of the population. 
 

History: 

I based this definition on the following historical examples: 

Example # 1 

The American Revolution was heralded by holders of property owners (mostly in the form of lucrative plantations thanks to black slaves who were shackled and forced  to toil  without charge for their white masters).  In addition,  destitute white people (qualified as non-holders of property), native American Indians, Black slaves, as well as women were disfranchised all of them deemed "the common mob". They could not vote or rule (hold an office). Hence, when the framers of the American constitution prefaced their text with "We the people",  in reality only just  8% of the U.S. population had the privilege of ratifying the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights". Source:  Late Professor Feldman Constitutional law scholar, Harvard Law school (Langdell).
 

Example # 2

Similarly, the French Revolution reflected the rule of the French Bourgeoisie epitomized as (Le Tier d'Etat).  The "so called" democratic "slogans"  of the French Revolution "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality," paved the way to the reign of "Terror" by excellence   A period characterized by a wave of executions of presumed enemies of the state. These executions were directed by the Committee of Public Safety. The Revolutionary government’s Terror was essentially a war dictatorship, instituted to rule the country in a national emergency. Responsibility for the police measures taken during the terror lay also with the Committee of General Security, which had control over the local committees formed to ferret out treason. The Law of Suspects (Sept. 17, 1793) defined those who could be arrested for “treasonable” activities; it was enforced by the Revolutionary Tribunal. Estimates vary as to the number of victims; 18 thousands were guillotined, and over 200,000 were arrested. Eventually this bloody situation led to the dictatorship of Bonaparte. Moreover Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France while enslaving the people of Europe through endless wars and destruction.  The version of  French "bill of Rights"  sounded great on paper but it never stopped the French from robbing the freedom of the people they subjugated in the French empire.  All of this in the name of Democracy! 
 

Example # 3 

The Soviets fared no better in their 1917 Revolution. They came to power under the emblem of  the workers' Revolution, while they literally decimated the peasantry in the country side. Estimate of 20 millions victims perished under Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin in the late 1920's and 1930's, and further were enslaved, many of them non-Russians multi nationals under the umbrella of the Soviet Union. The Communist party eventually ended up as an elite  made up of 1/100 of the population and represented by a  politburo, whose membership was mainly drawn from a Slavic/Russian ethnic group ruling over the deprived masses of several multi national groups overwhelmingly from  central Asia. 

With all of these examples and facts in mind, I can only come to the conclusion that the only "true form of democracy" thus far can only apply to death. 
 

Ishinan 

To be continued