If you are a statist, you probably agree with the notion that there are some activities undertaken by people, which should be regulated by the state. Even if you are a minarchist, you probably agree with the statement, that at least some offices should be available only for those who meet certain critiria prescribed by the law, assuring their ability to correctly exercise powers vested in them.
Moreover – if you are an average person, not really interested in politics, but intellectually “flowing” with the mainstream ideas, I bet you think that even some of the professions not necessairly connected to any government activity should be regulated in some way (doctors, lawyers, etc. should be required to have certain formal education confirmed by diplomas and certificates of various nature).
That being said, you are probably a democrat, and not, e.g. a monarchist or a supporter of some kind of mixed govermnent, where rulers are appointed partly by aristocracy having much stronger vote than the rest of the people, and so on.
And why is that so? Why is the idea of letting anyone (competent or not) to vote for a president or a member of parliament that appealing to you? In what way is it reasonable for a respected and well-educated citizen who had never lived on welfare to have a vote of equal power to a vote of someone who is a convicted felon with no knowledge of politics at all and lived all his life only at the expense of taxpayers' money?
Why is this huge inconsistency in the opinions of most of your fellow compatriots (demanding from doctors to have certain level of education while not demanding any from the people who decide who is going to rule the whole state) not even properly discused? Moreover, an attempt to suggest a discussion that challenges the legitimacy of democracy can be even conceived as an act of a secular blasphemy.
People nowdays, especially those thinking of democracy as of one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity, tend to think of themselves as “rationalists” and so often deny the existence of God. But isn't the believe in righteousness of democracy as unfounded in facts as the believe in the existence of God (and, by the way – more pernicious).
