Ghana as a country pride herself for being a democratic country, because of her electoral system which allows the citizens of the country to cast their votes every now and then. The country is also governed by the principles which are embedded in the nation's constitution, the constitution which is the embodiment of the totality of the powers of the government by the governed. And so we could say that the government of Ghana is of the people, by the people and for the people, right?

Well let's see, democracy which is derived from the Greek "popular government", was coined from the word dêmos, which means people and krátos, meaning rule, in other words democracy means, the rule of the people.

But when we take a look at the people, what do we see,we see both groups and classes separation of people, you have your upper-class, middle-class and low class and even though the people of these classes might be considered equal under the glaring eyes of the law, they are all not equally qualified to rule except for one particular class of people, namely the upper class. Now, why the upper class, you ask, because they have most of the money and those who have the money control those who don't, it's that simple, this is also the true nature of capitalism in all its unfairness.

And by the way, control means, restriction, lack of freedom, ruler-ship or dominion over someone or something.

And so since both the middle class and the low class are being ruled and controlled by the upper-class and therefore are being deprived of their basic human right which is freedom, why then do they continue to vote for democracy, which also stands for upper-class rule only, thinking that having the privilege to vote means freedom or even the exercise of it?

If you and I look at the upper-class, we all would conclude that there are not that much people in the upper-class, as a matter of fact they are in the minority and they're dictating to the majority, because of their wealth, which is symbolic to power. Now, mix the power of money with upper-class rule and you wind up having an upper-class dictatorship, which is what democracy truly and really stands for and mean, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of any kind.

Now what about socialism?

The definition of socialism is founded on two fundamental maxims: Thomas Jefferson's, "All men are created equal," and Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, in other words socialism seeks to realize some sort of equity and fairness in all the various aspects of and in society, but how could this be attained and could it indeed be attained? Well, it's true that all men are indeed created equal, however they are not same and it's this un-sameness, which makes it nearly impossible to satisfy all men equally.

A country which practices socialism often plans and controls all the various aspects of its economy, means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government, thus leaving absolutely no room for outsiders to invest. This form of domestication does make a socialist economy less dependent on the external market forces, thus less vulnerable to their influences, which of course is a positive thing.

On the negative side, socialism in its quest to realize social equity and fairness also winds up depriving its practitioners of one particular right, which is the freedom to be rich or not to be rich, this due to the fact that a socialist government controls the prices of all commodities and wages. And commodity price control, coupled to salary control by a government equals anti-capitalism. So really the question which socialism seems to be posing is, what profits a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? But then again I say to socialism, let the man be free to decide to whom or what he/she prefers to lose his/her soul.

On a personal note, I believe that both capitalism and democracy will bring about the fall of Western civilization, whatever that means. That said, I would have to agree with Fidel Castro, when he said that if socialism is wrong then so is democracy. So in conclusion, since democracy and socialism aren't both about freedom, which one is better and which one would we choose, if we had the chance to do it all over again?