There is a discussion in the History arm of StackExchange that got sidetracked into the merit of brainwashing society for their own good, as advocated in Plato's Republic. IMO that side track deserves a separate discussion in the Philosophy arm of StackExchange, therefore here we are.
There have been many arguments by historians, philosophers, politicians, and laymen about the relative merits of different political systems, including anarchy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc. Plato seems to advocate oligarchy; most people today favour democracy; however, more often than not, one sees the following curious amalgam of democracy and oligarchy.
Namely, the system is often setup in a manner that leads people to believe that they live in a democratic society, that their voice matters, and indeed many minor things are decided by popular vote get hyped up beyond any proportion by the media. However, all the important things are decided by oligarchy and are never publicised.
A fair comparison would be a parent of a 3-year old who would present the child with a false dichotomy so that the child would make the parent's choice, for the child's own good, while still believing that the choice has been made solely by the child.
An example of that would be the deal between FDR and Churchill regarding Lend-Lease and extension of US Navy patrol into the Atlantic, which was in direct contradiction to the strong desire of US populace to remain completely neutral.
This raises a couple of questions.
Is oligarchy that presents itself as a democracy compatible with liberty for all?
Is it moral to lie to the populace for their own sake?
Please discard Kant's categorical imperative against lying in general for the purpose of this question.