Benevolent Dictatorships work better than Democracies

Since my opponent forfeited the previous round I have no rebuttal argument to make. I will now make my concluding statement. Ladies and Gentleman, Throughout the course of this debate my opponent has failed to provide anytime of reliable proof to back up his argument that democracies are more effective than Benevolent dictatorships. On the other hand, I have provided statistical backing as well as real life examples of how and why benevolent dictatorships work better. I have shown that systems like the checks and balances practiced by the United States while they are great are keeping the balance of power, are incapable of functioning efficiently enough to keep of with the demands placed on modern governments. Benevolent Dictatorships remove the congressional proposal, discussion, and voting procedures that are the primary causes of slow governments. In Benevolent Dictatorships the one person in power is responsible for drafting and initiating bills, laws, and plans of action that will keep their country up and running. While it is true that benevolent dictatorships depend on the dictator being a morally responsible and free of corrupt desires, and while it is true that those people can be hard to find, it has been done before, and it still can be done. Proper benevolent dictators are involved in the life and culture of their country in such a way that they do not need congresses, senates, or advisory panels of any kind to learn what the people of their country want, need, or how to go about initiating the necessary changes. This type of interaction gives benevolent dictatorships a very personal aspect that can draw people in. It is just the people and their leader. There are no middle men, there are no people that requests must be funneled through in hopes that it might be brought to the dictators attention. Benevolent dictatorships also place a lot of responsibility on the leader, in fact the fate of the country is in their hands. Now before you rush to conclusions and say that is too much pressure to place on any one person I offer you this; that kind of responsibility inspires people to be better. When the difference between success and failure is them, people are inspired to step up and be better. They do not want history to show that any type of failure is their fault, because failure in government lives forever. This threat translates into a challenge, a challenge to be more, a challenge to do more, a challenge to be the driving force behind positive changes that could dramatically improve the quality of life for everyone in their country. Democracies take away this motivation because the amount of people with a vested interest in the countries well being becomes too many. Complacency runs rampant as everyone assumes someone else is putting in the work to bring about change. Then when things start to go bad there are way too many people in a position to point fingers at other people and nothing gets done. All that results are political smear campaigns full of "he said" "she said" that get rehashed every time election season comes around. In short, there are too many variables that get in the way of democracies operating effectively, these obstacles are not present in benevolent dictatorships which is why they work better.