The parliamentary form of government is the best among existing constitutional systems. However, the facts vary from region to region, and to judge the quality of democracy, one must review both the conceptual foundations of democratic values as well as its kinetic and productive performance. It is inappropriate to believe that something less than the ideal elected form of the government system equates to despotism. It is a procedure that you strengthen and improve as you apply it and get into mid-course corrections as well. As a result, the most crucial factor is its leadership and direction. Any democratic system must progress from a “less” to a “more” democratic state. It is the perpetual growth that necessitates a consistent evaluation of its implementation in terms of democratic principles and their operationalisation, as well as how the spirit of representative government is reflected in institutions and processes of administration and dispensation political. The most alarming situation for the democratic system is when there is a divergence between theory and practice, or when it turns out to be a weapon at the disposal of the financially influential and upper elite to strengthen their power in the political monopoly. It turns out to be what is known as an elitist political system, which allows the dominant rich and powerful to control the process and become the absolute centre. The most worrying flaw in the parliamentary form of government is that its “democratic” traditions might be used to spoil democratic values. The “tyranny of numerical strength” is a democratic method for undermining the democratic system. The disparity between theory and practice is represented by the contradiction of democratic governance and unpopular ruler. Competing political leaders frequently exploit the self-formed fears and apprehensions of some ethnocultural, religious, or regional groups to win votes in elections, while certain communities are portrayed as potential enemies or threats to the social assistance of others. A contender positions himself as the people’s defender and saviour. In this way, ethnic, linguistic, religious, sectarian, caste, or geographic factors are deliberately emphasised to secure the popular vote. Any democratic system must progress from a “less” to a “more” democratic state. Such an approach aided former President Trump in the US and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India in gaining the help of a segment of the people at the cost of others, highlighting domestic differences and divisions in society that tuns out to be challenging when it happens to be implementing local government policies. Every attempt to undermine society for ethnic gain is counterproductive to the objective of deepening democracy’s foundations because the support is segmented on ethnocentric and thin issues rather than party relationships and electoral objectives. The more societal divisions and splits there are, the more challenging it is to drive a democratic system. Those who gain electability by polarising society are more likely to become authoritative in power and biased in political dispensation. There are numerous examples in history of how an elected leader became an authoritarian ruler. Many voted-into-power ruling elites have used their parliamentary support to consolidate power to make decisions, especially when it is challenging to bring the people back together after it has been disintegrated during the time of the election campaign. A popular leader cannot sustain widespread sympathy unless necessities and services are provided to the public. Some ruling classes spend too much money on large and glamorous projects such as highways and public transportation, while others use state resources for partisan political purposes. Such projects benefit a small percentage of individuals while the socioeconomic conditions of most of humanity remain stable or worsen. Democracy’s achievements also depend on systemic checks and balances on public institutions. All national institutions must operate within their respective domains while respecting the executive power of other institutions. No powerful institution can be allowed to dictate the state’s other institutions and developments. For weeks, the appointment of the army chief dominated political discourse. Likewise, quandaries are extremely popular in countries that have seen the military establishment rise to religious clergy and political elite. Rather than establishing a believable negotiation for the army’s dominance, civilian regimes frequently involve in open or covert power struggles with the military establishment. Democracies are also under threat from the rise of religious, ethnic, and social extremism, as well as brutality by transnational non-state actors. The government is either incapable or hesitant to safeguard citizens from such radical groups. These developments undermine democratic values. Due to internal violence and conflict, several African states have collapsed or become dysfunctional. Democracy is a difficult political system that requires the letter and spirit of its principles to be followed. It is more flexible to the public’s aspirations. However, there are numerous examples throughout the past to demonstrate how the notoriety of representative government does not imply that now, the head of the state ruler will just be equally popular, or that those who criticise such a leader are anti-democratic. Political parties should talk to each other, but the state and society also require a state constitution to change the national outlook, which must be moderate and acceptable not only to the world but also to us. It will transform this nation into a haven for the weak and a place where the powerful do not misuse their power, religion, or numerical dominance. The writer is a PhD candidate.