Whether democracy as we know it here in the West is a good governance model for every other country is a question that has been on my mind a lot lately. That is because a good number of my Ghanaian friends, including some highly educated ones, increasingly think that the answer is no. They point to the series of democratically held elections in the country over the past three decades that have produced one dysfunctional and corrupt government after another, with socio-economic conditions having gotten progressively worse in the nation.

I have been a keen observer of Ghanaian politics over that period and I completely share their frustration. The sad truth is that, for the most part, people who go into politics in Ghana don’t aspire to be democrats and promoters of social welfare. Instead, they are largely seekers of wealth. Brazen theft of public funds by politicians has been a constant occurrence throughout the decades. The skeptics who argue that the democracy on offer in Ghana is a sham, and that it should be ditched, say that the country needs to come up with an indigenous governance structure as a replacement.

My chief concern is that the people in this camp have not offered any clear ideas about how to even begin the process of finding this alternative mode of government. And, would anything that replaces the current form of rule serve the people’s interest any better? I am unconvinced because it would still require human beings to operate it.

After carefully watching how different types of ruling systems across the world function, I have concluded that regardless of its flaws, democracy is the best form of government. Therefore, I have generally been supportive of the efforts by America and other Western nations to promote it globally.

Quite unfortunately, success has been mixed, at best. In many places, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the clearest examples, the efforts have created gigantic messes. The disastrous results have led many people to openly say that the West has no business telling people elsewhere how to govern themselves. That is a shame. While there is a lot that needs correction in the Western approach, abandoning the effort entirely would be a grave mistake.

Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is one Westerner who appears to have misgivings about the suitability of democracy for certain societies. In his recent Wall Street Journal article, he argued that it wasn’t wrong to topple Saddam Hussein’s cruel regime. But he listed a number of reasons why Iraq became such a mess. “The folly was failing to restore the monarchy—the only form of government that works in the Arab world—or failing to hand the government to the least bad of Saddam’s generals,” he cited as one of the causes. That was a pretty strong statement, and I found it quite baffling. Mr. Abbott seems to say that some societies can only function well under monarchies or rule by strongmen.

There are indeed substantial numbers of people who think that democracy is predominantly a Western ideal, and that it is not suitable for some cultures. I strongly disagree with that view. Self-determination is a universally cherished principle. People everywhere, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, gender or other background, want the freedom to decide what to do with their lives. The women and girls of Afghanistan don’t want some tribal chiefs deciding for them whether they should be educated or not. The furious reaction of South Koreans to their president’s bizarre decision to impose martial law ten days ago clearly demonstrates that it is not only Westerners who like to have a say in how they are governed. Based on everything I know, I am fully convinced that inclusive government, which is best epitomized by participatory democracy, is the best delivery vehicle for the autonomy that so many millions of people around the world crave.

Monarchic or strongman rule can provide a veneer of stability at times. But there is plenty of evidence from around the world to show that the people who live under those systems don’t necessarily appreciate the false serenity. They are often ruthlessly held under control through various forms of coercion. Social stability is certainly important. And yes, sometimes governments have to use some amount of force to maintain it. But the medicine prescribed to keep a society healthy cannot have such terrible side effects that it ends up killing the people.

I have lived with people from the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world. From my interactions with them, I learned that they cherish freedom as much as those of us here in the West do. By slamming the door so shut on whatever democratic aspirations they and their fellow nationals may have, Mr. Abbott has done them a great disservice. I sincerely hope that he didn’t mean his statement that way.