The particular approach in a particular place should depend on the social and historical context where one intends to bring changes. In the society where hunger and basic needs are the most pressing problems of survival, the issue of freedom should revolve
around the way human life can be secured against these needs. The most
meaningful social engagement in this situation should be to bring people out of
hunger and needs first before anything else. We do not need societies, which
profess democracy as the power of the individual to caste vote in the ballot
boxes, but do not allot resources and adopt methods to free the poor from
hunger and needs. It will be misunderstanding of democracy if the rich can buy
votes of the poor and manipulate the social system by exploiting illiteracy and
ignorance of the insecure people. Practicing democracy while keeping the wealth
and access to resources only in a few hands, and conducting a formal show of
equal participation of all in a voting process, will be against the aspiration
of freedom of the suffering people. They need rulers who have love and concern
for their freedom. How to establish a political order of the enlightened
rulers, while the political culture throughout history has been a history of
oppression and exploitation? Without curbing the greed of the wealthy and the power
hungry players, and setting conditions which may empower the poor to challenge
injustice and manipulation, the politics of instituting a  process where all are entitled to vote, will not bring any meaningful development of freedom. One must ensure methods to empower the disadvantaged with means that can halt the ambitions of greed that has
corrupted the development of humanity and hindered mankind to evolve in a
higher way. The way the idea of democracy is professed by the capitalist
societies, is certainly not conducive to freedom of the poor. For democracy to
have any meaning in furthering freedom of man, it has to be given direction and
control with a vision that individuals must show compassion and share the
suffering of the others in order to ensure the security and freedom of all. An ideology of a brutal competition must be replaced by the idea of the brotherhood of man.

The way to an enlightened world is a progressive path: One needs to build it step by step. The societies, who have been able to secure life against basic needs and
created conditions where creativity can flourish, the individuals can seek
freedom of individual self-realization. In this level of progress of freedom, knowledge,
information and openness to the outside world are great assets. In societies
where individuals enjoy similar economic strengths and opportunities to access
knowledge and stimulation to realize their higher potentials, the ideas of
human rights take altogether different dimension. All ideas, which project to
bring advancement and evolution of humanity, must remain open to discussion and
scrutiny in progressive societies. Where this process is mired by the
imposition of particular view and sanctity of traditions bearing a culture, the
possibility of human freedom becomes stagnant. Without creating an openness and
respect for challenging ideas and visions of human progress, the path of
democracy will fail. When democracy can be manipulated by a dominating culture
and belief, while seeking its superiority over other cultures and ideas, it will
loose its meaning. In a true democracy that seeks to create freedom of man where
individuals may contribute to the advancement of humanity, one must take
distance from any fundamentalist view whether of religious or philosophical
nature. Here all dialogues and discussion must pivot around the question of
building an enlightened world. Democracy should not be dragged into the
quagmire where all views, ideas and cultural prejudices and superstitions may
claim equal rights and clog the advancement of the society. Although one may
identify oneself with a particular culture and belief, where one feels
comfortable and happy because one is brought up in this environment, everybody
should be taught to seek a greater perspective than one`s own narrow parochial
world. Dialogue should not mean the path of regressing back in the dark days of
history by accepting the developments which has led us to wars and conflicts in
the past. The developments based on religions, and extreme views, which may
threaten the security of others, should be discarded if humanity must progress
and be free.  Instead of letting all cultural practices and prejudices occupy the cultural stage of the world with equal status, one should generate a process of dialogue among all cultures to set up guiding rules that will help mankind to seek a path of evolutionary
progress. In the name of democracy when ideas bearing superstitions and
prejudices against other culture and people may aspire to rise to take hold of power
in the society, one must win over them and strike hard to foil such aspirations.
Instead, they should be confronted with the views and aspiration of the
universal man seeking the enlightened path. However, one should not be naïve about
the enlightened democracy: To institute its reign one will need courage to
challenge the powers of the diverse power-hungry groups, who have dominated the
history in the past.

As long as the elements, which threaten the realization of an enlightened democracy all over the world, are not brought under the control of a universal body, which will have the authority to deal justice in furthering premises of freedom for mankind, the idea of peace will remain elusive. In a world, where different nations conceive democracy and
freedom in different ways, and practice and implement them in the context of their individual culture following narrow political interest, leaving the issue of human progress to an organization like the UN, as it is now, where every nation is trying to find opportunities for their interests, will not help to create an enlightened world.