Authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy

I accept the condition added by Con. (Before I begin, I must specify that I am not a native speaker, so there might be some grammar mistakes. My apologies in advance.) First of all, we have to consider the definition of democracy. Nowadays, democracy is either seen by the vast majority of people as the panacea for all evils and a necessity for all modern, developped States, or as the "lesser evil" - to the point where the word democracy is so often associated with tolerance, freedom and equality, that they've almost become synonyms. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, democracy is "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) According to The Marriam-Webster Dictionary, "Democracy is further defined as (a:) government by the people; especially: rule of the majority (b:) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) First argument: Democracy per se is contradictory. Actually, democracy cannot guarantee the (majority of the) population the freedom of choosing who represents them, since it is evident that it contains many contradictions. Although many examples could be made, I chose two of the strongest ones. First example: Condorcet in his famous voting paradox shows how this (a system of voting that guarantees equality and fairness) is mathematically impossible, since the collective preferences can be cyclic and, therefore, not transitive. Simply put, this means that majority wishes can literally be in conflict with each other. Suppose we have three candidates (A, B and C) and three voters (Citizen 1, Citizen 2, Citizen 3). Citizen 1, 2 and 3 can either represent each one person, or a group of X number. These are the preferences of Citizen 1, 2 and 3: First preference Second preference Third preference Citizen 1 A B C Citizen 2 B C A Citizen 3 C A B If there was an election, it is evident that A, B and C would all receive one vote as first preference, one for second preference and another one for third preference. This way, we would obtain the same number of votes and no winner could be chosen. K. Arrow also illustrated how this cannot but occur in any form of government with the following characteristics: non-dictatorship, universality, non-imposition, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and monotonicity (Arrow's impossibility theorem). From the conclusion Arrow obtained from his analysis, we can understand that, in order for there to be a coherent, linear social order, the government has to be dictatorial. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... Second example: An undeniable internal paradox of democracy is that, when there is a strong contrast between general well-being and the wish of the majority, the government has to either be inefficient or liberal. If, for example, the majority of the population wished for an anti-democratic form of government, democracy would cease to exist. And if the government were to oppose, democracy would also cease to exist, since this would go against the wish of the majority. Now, even if some laws were made to prevent this from happening, it would mean to exclude a vast part of the population, if not all or the majority, from voting and expressing their own opinion and wishes. Therefore once again, even in such a case, democracy would cease to exist. Second argument: In an authoritarian form of government, those who take power are less likely to be corrupted than in a democratic form of government. This is because, in the first case, the one who takes power will feel like the responsibility to rule justly is solely in their hands. Compared to when a person is elected in a democracy, the pressure to "do a good job" would be far greater. (Plus, we have to remember that a dictator's survival depends on the economic success of the country, which depends on how just and fair their decisions are.) A valid example of this theory, among the many, is Cincinnatus, who, in Ancient Rome, was dictator twice. In times of deep political crisis, or during war times, Romans used to have a dictator who would only rule for a limited period of time. When Cincinnatus became dictator, he did such a great job that the people of Rome asked him to keep ruling; but he refused, saying he had already done his job and now it was time for him to pull back. The same example could be made for a large number of monarchs throughout history: it is enough to take a look at benevolent or enlightened absolutism (1700-1800) or cases of the so-called benevolent dictatorship (e.g. King Abdullah II). This also shows how authoritarianism, if applied properly, can benefit the State itself and the population, which takes us to the third argument. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Third argument: Authoritarian forms of government such as dictatorships can control both human and economical development better than democracies, also thanks to straightforward decision-making Dictatorships can guarantee better economical welfare, education and health systems to the population, simply because they can decide how distribute funding, supplies and resources in general in every sector, they are able to manage the institutional and legal systems and can consequently implement laws that are needed to solve problems rather quickly; moreover, they can determine, among the other things, salaries and places of employment - all of this in a way democracies cannot. Economical development is greatly encouraged thanks to the ability of quick, efficient decision-making. Dictatorships have the possibility to establish a pro-investment framework that could otherwise encounter many obstacles in democracies (like oppositions from parties). "A government, no matter which kind, can surely make good or bad decisions. But there are things that can stifle, dilute and postpone any good idea. It will have a tendency to get better in direct relation to the quality and merits of people thinking about it. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly." (http://debatewise.org...) "Once established, this institutional framework motivates Foreign Direct Investments, which increases the demand of labor and other internal supplies which creates a virtuous circle towards significant and homogeneous income growth, which is directly linked to the development of societies." (http://debatewise.org...) A striking example of this is the "Spanish Miracle", from 1959 to 1974, thanks to and under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco(https://en.wikipedia.org...; http://countrystudies.us...), or also Cuba, a modern dictatorship with one of the beast healthcare systems in the world (The Economist, ‘Reshoring manufacturing: Coming Home’, 19 January 2013,http://www.economist.com...) and Shanghai, in 2009, came first in the PISA* test; Korea was second and Finland got third place.(http://www.oecd.org...)* PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment, "triennial international survey which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. To date, students representing more than 70 economies have participated in the assessment." (http://www.oecd.org...)