Not all countries must adopt to modern day democracy

Thanks, Pro.It sounds like Pro is an agreement with Winston Churchill when he said,"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."But another quote of Churchill's is better known:"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."The second quote is better known for the better wisdom conveyed. I won't defend democracy as the paragon of governments, only as the most free and sustainable solution to the difficult problem of governing large bodies of people. Pro argues that the majority of the population is not smart enough to vote in a reliable leader. Voting is far more subjective than objective. Intelligence is hard to quantify and doesn't often come into play. Most voters pick a handful of issues to make a priority and vote for the candidate most likely to represent those interests. The electorate of 1968 was possibly the best educated generation of voters in American history and nevertheless the majority voted according to their positions on Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, electing a notoriously unreliable Richard Nixon. Chances are even Pro is not really thinking about intelligence so much as he is thinking about people who agree with him. People who agree with Pro are the people Pro mostly considers smart, I suspect.Furthermore, I would argue that reliability is not an essential quality for leadership: Jimmy Carter was a model of stability, but ineffectual as a leader. Lyndon Johnson was a volatile bully, who nevertheless accomplished a great deal in five years. Both George Bush's were remarkably predictable leaders, while Bill Clinton would often surprise the pundits, and scandalize the masses. Nevertheless, history remembers Clinton as the more effective executive.So neither intelligent citizens nor reliable leaders are essential to good government. Even if reliability were to be considered essential, what other form of government is more likely to produce dependable leadership? Do autocracies and aristocracies have a better track record for dependability? For every Augustus, there is at least one Caligula For every Queen Victoria, you get three bad Richards.Some advantages of Democracy are:IMPROVED GUARANTEES of LIBERTY- in order to ensure a relatively fair vote, every Democracy is constitutionally bound to certain guarantees of free speech, free assembly, freedom of the press. Without these basics, Democracy collapses.TERM LIMITS- even very good leaders tend towards greater corruption and dissolution over time. Term limits ensure that the impact of any leader or party is finite and subject to renewal on a regular basis.PEACEFUL TRANSITIONS- since a fair election is enforced by majority opinion, popular revolutions and military coups occur less often in Democracies.MANDATES- elected leaders owe a debt of gratitude to the majority for which repayment comes in fulfillment of campaign promises. The relationship of the leader to the people is more strictly defined as service to the electorate.CITIZENSHIP- participatory Democracy encourages a sense of social responsibility and contribution to the community, which is expressed in public improvements far beyond government's capacity.REDUCED CORRUPTION- corruption is always a problem, but checks and balances, opposing parties, and a more free press serve as watchdogs against corruption in Democracies.ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS- stable government transitions, reduced corruption, and greater social responsibility allow for greater confidence in the free market, improving trade and job creation.Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to speak in favor of Democracy. I look forward to his argument.