Authoritarianism is better than corrupted democracy

The Pro has previously stated he has very limited time due to final exams, so I will ask that his forfeiture of this round not be held against the pro in voting decisions.I will not make any new arguments as a favor to the pro, and simply respond to his arguments. Response to Pro's First Argumentthis argument is based on two examples. First the Condorcet paradox. This paradox does not actually support his argument as this argument is a mathematical argument for a different voting system, not a philosophical argument or a political argument against democracy as a whole. This argument has no weight in this debate.Response to Second ArgumentIn authoritarian systems the chances of corruption is absolutely higher because of the old adage, "Power corrupts, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely."Power is inherently corrupting and in authoritarian states this is only exacerbated. And numerous examples throughout history have proved this.The Pro cites Cincinnatus as an example for his case, however Cincinnatus was only dictator for less than two days and never handled more tasks than the one he was appointed to deal with. This system of dictators in times of emergency used in Rome also resulted in absolute power, as the last man who held this title was named Julius Caesar, who never relinquished power after he was appointed and became dictator for life.Other examples include Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire. Mobutu is widely considered the "archetypal African Dictator" and was extremley corrupt. Durring his rule he embezzeled billions of dollars and he is a prime example of how Autocracies very easily become Kleptocracies.Further examples of thsi include Suharto of Indonesia, Slobadan Milosivic of Serbia, Jean-Claude Duvalier of Hati and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philipines.And the Pros example of King Abdullah is infact false, because according to Transperency International, Jordan's score on corruption has been increasing, and the country has become increasingly corrupt under his rule.And the Pro cites the concept of the "beneovolent dictator" however this is frankly a myth. this leads me directly into...http://www.phrases.org.uk...http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.transparency.org...Response to Third ArgumentThe idea that Autocracies perform better than Democracies economically is only based on anecdotal evidence and is not representative of a trend. A study form the Center for International Private Enterprise found that "there is no concrete evidence that autocracies outperform democracies across the board."The study also found that strong institutions and democratic governance are also necessary for the long term economic sustainability and future investment. So while Dictatorships may be beneficial in the short term, in the long run, only democracies can bring economic prosperity.In fact there are numerous examples of dictatorships having a detrimental impact on the economy. In Zimbabwe, the USSR, Burma, Zaire, Iraq, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Bolivia, Indonesia, El Salvador, and Tanzania, dictators have severly damaged the national economy, or ruined the economy altogether.http://www.cipe.org...;http://www.cipe.org...;