Not all countries must adopt to modern day democracy

I admit I'm still a little hazy on Pro's thesis here, although his post in the comments section has concretized his position somewhat.Pro argues that the majority of nations do not benefit by adopting democratic governments. So far, Pro has not defined a measurement by which we may know which countries Pro deems fit for freedom and which are better suited for autocracy. Pro speaks of the quality of intelligence, but I hope his argument is not that some nationalities are more intelligent than others and therefore more fit for Democracy. I will provide Pro the benefit of the doubt and refrain from assuming this is Pro's intended demarcation, since it should be obvious that intelligence can't be quantified according to geography or nationality. Pro spoke of reliable leadership in his first round, but I have already argued that reliability is not an essential quality of good leadership. Since Pro did not refute the point, I'll assume that is not Pro's final goal. By what standard, Pro, is Democracy the best solution? By what standard does Pro recommend against Democracy?Another important oversight by Pro is the form of government Pro recommends in Democracy's place. If a country is not suited for Democracy, what form of government should be instituted? As I stated in round 1, Democracy is not perfect nor is it a panacea for all the challenges of government, but Democracy is generally superior to all other known forms of government for the advantages laid out in round 1. In the comments section, Pro discerns some advantages to dictatorships: "Dictatorships breed development though efficient and straightforward decision making, longer lasting and biggest economic miracles have occurred under dictatorships." Is Pro arguing, then, the majority of nations would prosper under dictatorships? To me, this is an astonishing statement. Plato may have theorized that a Philosopher King was the best form of government, but even he admitted that a good king was damn hard to come by. Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini all viewed themselves as adherents to Plato's vision of benevolent dictatorship. History has proved otherwise.So, until Pro offers some other form of government, let's look at some of the examples we've discussed with Democracy vs. Dictatorship in mind.NIXONAs I said in round 1, the electorate of 1968 voted on two issues: Vietnam and Civil Rights. Although Nixon had been hawkish about intervening in Southeast Asia before 1968, he understood that the war was unpopular and promised "peace with honor." NIxon switched to bombing to support troop withdrawals, ended the draft, and most importantly initiated relations with China, breaking the Communist alliance with Russia. Although Nixon was generally suspicious of the Civil Right's movement and indulged the racist vote in the South to win, Nixon supported the Voter's Right Act reasoning that as more blacks registered with the Democratic Party, racist whites would move from the Democratic ticket to the Republican. During his administration, Nixon implemented the first and largest Affirmative Action programs and school integrations. In fact, it may be fairly stated that all of Nixon's finest accomplishments were antithetical to Nixon's own and the Republican Party's historic federalist beliefs: establishing the EPA, expanding the National Parks system, the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. The electorate voted on two issues and got exactly what they wanted from Nixon. Doesn't seem so dumb to me. The only reason Nixon enacted so much legislation as president that he opposed as Senator was because of the power of Democracy. If Nixon were a dictator who did not need to be re-elected, little of his best work would have been accomplished. RON PAULHowever much one might value Ron Paul's small government message, there is little doubt that his voice is of a type that can only be heard in a Democracy. What dictatorship has ever tolerated a vocal, popular minority politician who advocates for the formation of militia as a check on national power? In any dictatorship, Ron Paul would have never spoken or he would have been removed.ROB FORDIf Ford was a dictator, or a mayor supported by a dictatorial power, how would Toronto's prosperity be improved? Would the people ever have been advised of Ford's scandalous behaviour? Probably not. In a dictatorship, would the people have any recourse or remedy to investigate Ford or check his power? By definition, no, they would not. 642 × 421 - vice.com EGYPTMuhammad Morsi abandoned Democracy when he immunized himself from any restraint by the judicial or legislative branches, effectively becoming a dictator on Nov 22, 2012. In spite of the free and popular vote for Morsi in the summer of 2012, Egyptians instantly recognized the betrayal of Democracy, renounced Morsi, and brought him down. Egypt hasn't even had a chance to get a proper constitution written, but they seem to have a pretty good understanding of the sacrifices citizens must make to preserve Democracy. How is Egypt an argument in favor of dictatorships?SOUTH AFRICA, NIGERIA, MALAYSIA, THAILANDI won't pretend to know every issue under consideration in these emerging Democracies. All four have seen significant struggles and significant increases in Democracy over the past 20 years. Nigeria, Malaysia, and Thailand have all seen improvements in quality of life proportional to Democratic increase. South Africa's quality of life has plateaued since the end of Apartheid, but this is a remarkable accomplishment considering that 90% of the population, 45 million people, have been brought into the economy. All four countries have had their share of totalitarian and dictatorial regimes, I see no evidence that those dictatorships were an improvement on democracy.IMPROVED GUARENTEES of LIBERTY- Your argument is that a dictatorship is less like to spy on its people or crack down a protesters? Obviously, dictatorships must spy and oppress opposition in order to maintain their hold on power. The difference is that we are less likely to hear about it and people under a dictatorship have no remedy against power. At least in a Democracy, a free press reports on the NSA and OWS and the people's disapproval is heard. NSA spying was generally approved of by the U.S. electorate until this summer. Those number are now about 55% against. If those numbers hold, improved oversight is likely before the mid-term elections. In general, voters were split on various OWS crackdowns so politicians have felt little need to respond. In New York, 51% of voters disapproved of Bloomberg's handling of OWS and his personal approval numbers held steady. Interestingly, the mayoral candidate who was most critical of Bloomberg's handling is the now the Democratic nominee and heavily favored to win. Democracy may not provide a perfect response, but in a dictatorship we would never have heard the name Edward Snowden and OWS would all be in jail or dead. TERM LIMITS- If electorates like a leader's policy, they can always vote for a candidate who will continue the policy. Both George Bush's are properly understood as extensions of Reagan's policies. Hillary Clinton's policies are presumed to be an extension of Bill Clinton's policy. If a leader's policies are unpopular, there are always remedies in a Democracy. In my state of Colorado, two legislators won a popular election last fall only to be kicked out in a special election last week. It might be a little inefficient, but at least Democracy is flexible.MANDATES- elected politicians sometimes break their promises. Dictators have no need to make promises. Why is that better?I'm running out of room so I'll take on CORRUPTION and the ECONOMY in the next round. What is the standard for determining which countries do not merit democracy? What form of government does Pro endorse in the absence of Democracy? How and why is that form an improvement on Democracy?