First off, good day.

I'll go straight to the point of what I want to say.

1. Democracy is "a government of the people, by the people and for the people".... This is the basic definition.

2. "Democracy is a system of government where every citizen of a given country has a right to live, express themselves and (if of age) vote for any candidate of their choice...." This is the wrong and dangerous definition alloyed with ignorance. The error here lies on the clause: "...vote for any candidate of their choice."

I'll start by showing how false and dangerous this second definition is before explaining (if need be) the intelligence in the first definition and why it's the perfect definition of democracy.

Democracy is said to be birthed in ancient Greece. It gradually developed to what we have today. Back in the days of the Greeks, Democracy was their pride. But there was someone among them who hated Democracy and suggested a different type of political system. His name was Socrates.
Socrates is undebatably one of the brightest mind to ever walk this planet. Yet he was a critic of Democracy. When I'm done exposing Socrates' reason for disliking democracy, you'll see for yourself how intelligent the man was.

(Should in case you don't know, Socrates actually never wrote a book or any article. Most of the texts and ideas credited to him were written down by his student, Plato.)
So in one of Plato's book, he recorded an event where Socrates was having a political argument with one Adeimantus. Socrates was trying to show him the flaws of Democracy by comparing the State to a Ship.
He asked Adeimantus if he would prefer just anyone onboard a ship he was sailing with to captain the ship or if he would prefer someone educated is Ship-sailing. Adeimantus replied that he would prefer someone educated in Ship sailing. Then Socrates asked him why he allows (in the name of democracy) every old person in the City to vote for a candidate of their choice in elections. Why do he believe that any old person is fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?

Socrates’ point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a Ship sailing from Taiwan to Apapa in a storm.
If the primary criterion for eligibility in electoral voting is "AGE", then old "idiots" have the right too to vote... Except if you want to tell me that "idiots" don't exist in our society, or that the ones among us are not citizens of our country, or that they never come of age.
And by virtue of the democratic slogan: "all votes count", the vote of an idiot can determine who rules you for 4 years. Think about it.

And if you need to know, some charges were brought up against Socrates and he was later condemned to death and made to drink "poison". And funny enough, his condemnation was decided by voting.

Socrates criticized democracy and suggested a political system headed by a Philosopher King. Back then a Philosopher is an epitome of Wisdom, understanding, Knowledge. He has explanations to almost all human problems. (Mind you I said EXPLANATIONS and not SOLUTIONS). A philosopher in Ancient Greek has the same social significance as an Oracle (Dibia) in Ancient Igbo Society. The only difference is that the Dibia receives the explanations he gave from some metaphysical and intuitional sources (inaccessible to others) whereas the Philosopher gets his explanation from critical thinking of which any other person can attain if they work on their mind. You can search up "Socratic method" on the internet to see how Socrates gave knowledge to people by making the people bring out the knowledge itself from themselves. Back to the Philosopher King.

For Socrates, the society will be best managed by the brightest mind of the society. But how to bring this brightest mind to power is where all the problem lies.
Since the history of mankind, the brightest minds of societies have always been hated and avoided. And when you check the facts well, you'll realize those brightest minds were hated mainly by their contemporaries who don't measure up to their intelligence... Socrates, Jesus Christ, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Friedrich Nietzsche, Nikola Tesla, Martin Luther King...
And you know, for the fact that "majority carries the vote", these bright minds didn't end up well with people of their epoch because the majority opinion was against them.

So if the brightest political mind in a country contests for the post of president, he is most unlikely to win the election because history shows that no man who has been intellectually ahead of his contemporaries ever get to be wanted by his contemporaries. The only method by which super-brilliant minds use to ascend to political positions seems to be oligarchy or monarchy. And we know how these system of government always end... Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's why these kind of government easily breeds tyranny. And Tyranny is the last form of government Socrates would opt for.

So, Socrates ended up showing the flaws of democracy and suggesting a perfect system of government to replace democracy but he has no idea how to go about implementing his Philosopher King system of government.

I just hope my text isn't so vague that you didn't see where I'm driving to.
The topic says "See how ignorant you are of democracy". After reading my text, do think you're ignorant of what democracy is about?
Do you still believe that the vote of everyone should be considered in elections? And even if all votes should be considered, do you think all who votes are intelligent enough to choose a president for the entire country?
Wait wait. Before I forget.

I actually got the idea to right this because I've read many times here on Nairaland texts like these: "Abeg go face your candidate and campaign for him. No dey criticize other people's candidates..." "Market your candidate and allow me to market mine"

So someone in a country of over 200 million people has the guts to affirm they have a presidential candidate? You can't believe how ignorantly dangerous such a mindset is. This mindset, like I showed up there, is powered by the democratic belief that every adult is ENTITLED to voting. And this Democratic belief is birthed in the second definition of democracy I gave up there.

Brethren, Democracy is our government, by us and for us. It is not our government, by YOU and for us. No.
You might be entitled to call that person your candidate. But be sincere deep inside you. Do you want to vote for him because of the possessive pronoun "MY" before the noun "candidate" or because you put the country first.

Remember... Remember...There's someone in this country with you that'll rather have Sharia nationalized than have 24h electricity. And since all indices points to the fact that Shekau (the rumored leader of Boko Haram) will most likely nationalize Sharia if given the chance to be the President, there's someone out there sharing this country with you who will prefer Shekau as President of this country rather than that person you call "My Candidate". It's cool is you say "God forbid" to that "someone's" plan. But it's pure hypocrisy if that someone is you and that Your Candidate is Shekau Pro Max.

One more time. Democracy is our government, by us and for us. It's not your government, it's not solely by you and it's not for you alone. Bro, I hope you're thinking about the rest of the country when next you say "My Candidate".

Stay blessed.

Nice write-up. But still Nigerian government is a rubbish right from initial I think