The long-term effectiveness of delivering public goods through democracy is doubtful.
Many of us began with the ideal that democracy is best, then shifted to the pragmatic view that it is the least evil form of governance.
Compared with a benevolent dictator it may pale, but at least democracy allows people to vote out a bad ruler when no benevolent dictator exists.
In practice, truly malevolent dictators are relatively rare.
When one rises, however, they can also win power through democratic means - think Hitler, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, Putin, or Trump.
Once in office, they often tend to find the keys to unlock the system from within and extend their power or term well beyond the limits democracy intends.
That raises some very difficult questions on the original question to which purportedly democracy waz the answer - is a dictator necessarily bad?
A dictator whether they come to power through democratic processes or otherwise, are they not sometimes portrayed as bad by their rivals, including larger influential democracies with the help of a dishonest media that waz ironically built to keep leaders honest through sincere reportage?
We learn that Muammar Gaddafi waz, to many, as beloved to hiz people as Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan is by Emiratis, or Putin is to most Russians.
Each of these leaders pursued welfare-state policies in their own ways.
Iran, meanwhile, is not a straightforward dictatorship but a quasi-democracy Americans dislike; the Shah (Pahlavi) had the opposite reputation, detested by many Iranians but admired by the United States.
Humans have not figured out how to govern themselves.
Controversial as my opening claim may sound, when compared with the great empires of the ancient Bharat, which endured for centuries - modern democracy tends to produce only small pockets of successful welfare states, despite the fact that territorial contests are mostly settled today. Most leaders struggle to win even a 2nd term through the ballot and so some are motivated to undermine the process of election itself rather than accepting their fateful exit.
Because the wars are no longer for land and indeed are for markets and resources, outside interventions are the order of the day. These are done primarily to undermine a nation's influence in the global trade & commerce.
I believe a country should first achieve at least middle-income economic strength before being granted full democratic freedom, so that the nation can resist narratives that are undermining its position, people, and leader.
Our tragedy in India is that we extended democratic freedoms before solidifying economic foundations.
Today, voters often receive short-term handouts instead of the governance needed to escape dependence on election-time doles.
Once economic strength is established, a gradual move toward single-party democracy, as in Singapore, can be considered. The public can, if need be, always remove the top leader at the end of the term if the administration under him or her is found to not be performing.
Alternatively, a party-state rule where election is within and by party members and not the public might work well, when guided by our own Dharmic principles.
Why?
Because human beings are naturally inclined toward adharma especially when self-awareness is wavering, imagination runs unchecked, memory is poor, conscience is weak, and willpower is frail.
A Brahmin led moral counsel helps to remind the mightiest of rulers and governments that to truly rule the world, they must serve it.
A Chanakya-Maurya model needs to be retrieved.
Only a civilization as ancient as Bharat and a country as young as India, one that is rooted in its past and wedded to its future, stands a chance to bear long-term fruits.
We can surely be an exemplary role model for the world to emulate.
