@geographer
Race and gender are stupid indicators as to whether one should have the right to vote, I agree. Rather, the ability to follow, comprehend, and think in the long term what policies presented by different parties should be the decision. If there were some fair way to test all individuals for this quantity, then that would be the way to see whether some people can vote and whether some cannot. Of course, race and gender are also associated with SES, which is in turn associated with the ability to comprehend the complexities of governance and which vote to give where. So democracy can never truly be properly realized without greater equality and equity.
But I digress. The key point I'm making is yes, I believe many people, irregardless of race, gender, or SES, do not vote in governments that are objectively the best for their nation. Rather self interest, emotion, and influence of media are bigger factors.
Whether those factors are enough to adversely effect the democratic process to a degree that meaningful harm will come to a nation depends on the nation's preexisting level of development.
--
I agree that autocratic governments do tend towards megalomania, and I would argue that there are more unsuccessful autocracies than unsuccessful democracies. But at the same time, if you can get autocracy right, by striking a balance between how much one lone individual can influence a country's goings on, and an autocracy which has a proper means of receiving constructive feedback from the populace while retaining its hold on decision making power.
---
Ease of doing business for private companies =/= ability of a nation to deliver infrastructure
And yes, NIMBY individuals definitely may have legitimate concerns. As do many of the villagers who are unfairly compensated by the Chinese government in exchange for their land for urban development or infrastructure projects. Corruption is a big problem where local officials would take land, develop it, and sell it off to make profit while giving the villagers nothing. that's a big problem, but that's not something inherent to the autocratic system; that is to say, it is something that can potentially be changed.
But there are also projects which could potentially save lives, prevent disasters, incentivize larger area growth, which on balance may well be worth the greivances of a village. It is unfortunate, and I completely sympathize those whose homes are destroyed and in that situation a democratic system may well have been a better turn out for that village. But then we are missing the potential bigger picture. The needs of a many may well be more important than the needs of a few. It would be best if the needs of that few were properly compensated, but it's either one road or the other.
---
And yes, I agree that good leaders should understand their people. But there is a difference between talking to a few people during an election campaign, participating in a debate or two, answering twitter questions, and actually acting on people's needs.
Furthermore, that is assuming leaders in autocracies do not recognize the needs of the people, or recognize them poorer than leaders in democracies. Also, at least in China, leaders do not rise to high positions without first proving themselves in lower levels of governance. Depending on the measure of success used, I interpret that as an indirect measure of a leader's ability to understand local to larger issues. But for any leader regardless of the type of political system, the higher you go the more disconnected you come with the average person, especially in larger and more powerful countries. The question is whether there is a practically significant difference between autocratic and democratic leaders in understanding and more importantly acting on the concerns of normal people.
the additional benefit of autocracies, is that the leaders are aware that if they do not have the support of the people, then they will lose their rule and likely have no way to get it back. whereas in democracies, parties which fall out of favour can spring back, only slightly reshuffled. So in a way, autocracies have more incentive to act with meaningful consequences.
(The flipside of that, is how many autocracies tend to repress the people and use propaganda to instill themselves in their rule rather than actually producing policies that benefit the population and the nation. Such autocracies are untenable and repulsive, but it does not mean all autocracies are.)
---
As for "knowing which way the wind is blowing" --- normal people are busy with their own lives, they often cannot stand back and observe the big picture. They are also often under the influence of big businesses and media conglomerates, which have the power to send their own wafts of wind and change the individual's perception of the truth. If a political system relies on people having the capacity to sift the truth from the filth then I think the system is a little bit flawed.
At the end of the day, I'm not saying autocracies are better then democracies. Rather I'm saying that the idea of blanketing every nation at every stage of development to become a democracy is a poor one.
My claim is not an ambitious one, I just need instances where a more autocratic form of governance have or may have produced a better result than a more democratic one. To back up the idea that all countries should be democracies requires every instance of governance ever to have been more successful if it were democratic.
The way we should determine a nation's political system imo should be dependent upon two dimensions, which can be broken down into a number of subcomponents if one wants (I won't do that because I'm lazy):
-What level of development is it at where universal sufferage will be able to work uninhibited by other factors such as corruption, media manipulation, bribery, and lobbying, and if democracy are inhibited by those factors, will it cause meaningful harm to the nation?
-Whether the level of development is sufficient to allow the perks of universal sufferage be worth the more diluted government power and constraints to election cycles? (i.e.: are there pressing humanitarian, geostrategic, economic challenges where democracy may hinder rather than enable)
