A Critique of Democracy - Looking to be proved an idiot
I'm starting to think that democracy is a highly ineffective system and authoritarianism easily abused by whomever cares more about being an individual power rather than doing the best for their country.
I see democracy as something that only works when people are made to make decisions after spending countless hours diving into analyzing and comparing the competency of each candidate, you can not expect that from a pool of 100 million random people. If a good government is created by solving an extremely complicated problem, why would you ask millions of people who have no reason to spend any of the time necessary to understand it to choose?
A quasi-authoritarian rule under an idealized competent benevolent party solves many of it's problems but can not be reliably sustained over multiple generations because for every lee kuan yew there will be 5 of donald trump.
I see a divided government as inefficient and impossible to rely on for any sort of long-term vision. If you have to average out every decision to find the point of most total satisfaction for the vote stakeholder, no matter how objectively harmful or genuinely necessary their needs might be for what matters outside of them as an individual / for the most benefit for your nation, you might as well use the effect a decision has on the immediate share price of a company as a legitimate source of truth for the long term growth of that company.
When a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure. The democratic process rewards those who maximize public opinion rather than acting as a system to judge competence without bias; This can be seen through things such as arbitrarily dividing political opposition into "them" and "us" being legitimate strategies for attaining office.
This need to maintain non-analytical, non-rational, averaged public opinion serves to poison the decision making of leaders into making matching non-rational decisions, you stop being rewarded for thinking about what the country needs and start thinking in terms of what people would vote for, what would keep your approval ratings up, what is going to be least hated by the aggregate sum.
(Note: by Non rational I do not mean irrational. I mean not up to par with the personal investment that an objective researched analysis of what should be done or who should be elected would require if the outcome is to be free of these major side effects.)
Thus I see a single competent benevolent party that comes to be without the influence or selection of these incentives to maintain public opinion as a government as more likely to be able to judge and implement the policy best for the prosperity of a collective than a competitive system like you'd see in the US, precisely because it doesn't have an incentive to prioritize action by what voters would vote for instead of what should be done outside of the leader's personal interests.
(Note: I am not saying that a competent benevolent party is easy to come by, I actually think the opposite. The means to getting to this state consistently is it's own, likely unsolvable problem; And if that is so, then democracy likely minimizes the most risk.)