To be fair, these contestants were poor singers not because of their appearance. The two have no correlation. But for those looking for a scintilla of democracy, as was the raison d'etre for the media frenzy in 2005, the sign is not good. It hints that a relatively open and participatory process consistently fails to select the best contender. If you count the behind-the-scenes manipulation, the prospect is even more gloomy.

From the very beginning, there were rumors that the show - or shall we call it a mock election? - was rigged. A certain online source was able to predict, correctly, the result of the coming episode week after week. On top of that, the show fed the press a constant stream of gossip about some of the girls, which worked brilliantly to shape their public personas. The voting process, before it was prohibited, strongly favored those with financial backing and there were reports of block votes only possible with the infusion of large sums of money.

Lesson No 4: All participants are equal, but some more equal than others.

It is true that a complete unknown with enormous talent has a better chance at Supergirl or the reincarnated Happy Girls. But that doesn't mean this is a fair and transparent platform. It only means it may be a better one than traditional channels.

Part of its strength lies in the fact it is more attuned to public sentiments. But if the result is an accurate reflection of the public at large, it does not portend well for the political system of participatory decision-making. It shows as much about what can go wrong as what may go right. Still, as a sociological experiment, this reality show is the closest approximation to reality as we know it. So, don't rule it out yet.