Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

"Only law can give us liberty" - Johan Wolfgang von GoetheFirst of all, I want to express my admiration for the modesty my opponent prefers over malice; I do not have the honour of meeting such rivals often.The definition of democracy is as follows. 'A form over governing a state whereby the people choose who rules a particular part or the entirety of the state's business'. It has come from Greek, from the root words demos and cratos, which mostly are translated plainly as 'the people rule'.The thing that makes us think democracy is good is the fact that the rulers are chosen by the people, that their reign is not lasting extremely long and that many a ruler is elected. If this is really democracy's forte, I would like to oppose, for then democracy is not very different from other forms that have failed. The people do not know the rulers personally, so they may and often do have a false image of the rulers' intentions. The next two 'advantages' of democracy are easily put together, by opposing it with the following statement:The more rulers there are, and the more often they change places or resign, the more chaotic a government you have.Take this for an example: what goes faster - relay races or single races?And if you have got the fact that single races go faster, of course, ask yourself why.When a person is busy with some activity, and he has to hand it over to someone else, it brings the delay of the former quitting, and the latter picking it up. Goes slowly...The Romans of the Roman Republic understood this: they appointed a dictator in situations where the bother of gatherings, discussions and debates between the members of the senate would just slow everything down too much. Just for six months though, but in these six months he had all the power. No waste of time on gatherings and arguing - he just had to clap his hands, and an order was given to the port companies or the army.Now I'm at it, the word 'dictatorship' is often misunderstood. A dictator is someone to whom everyone just puts down his will.Is this bad? Not at all, it isn't! As long as its a good dictator, I believe it is the most efficient and fast way to govern a state.Now, my honourable opponent has asked me what kind of government I prefer.It is actually a mixture of dictatorship (that proved its use with the Romans), monarchy (that, in many Western countries is still respected and used), oligarchy (people of some status earned by merit), theocracy and a bit of democracy (if the dictator is unfair or does not play by the rules, people kick him out).Such impossible a governing, you might think, but it is very simple.The dictator (or prime minister, if you will) runs everything. He makes sure the economy stays on edge, he runs in the education field, etc. But, he is not entirely alone. Other ministers do help him, though the last word is with him. He stays dictator for ten years, until his death or until he becomes disabled.The way to make sure he cannot misuse his power, is to put the law and the supreme command over the army under the protection of the monarch, so he/she should really be engaged in military affairs. Any movement made by the army has to be dictated by the king or queen.And the law can never be changed. This is where theocracy shows up. Divine rules are perfect, human-designed regulations are imperfect and transitory. For proof of the divinity of these rules, another debate can be started...I await my opponents commentary with the greatest honour towards him and patience.Peace upon all who read this.