Is it accurate to coorelate the success of a nation to a monarchy/ dictatorship insted of democracy

Choosing between dictatorship and democracy is pretty absurd, especially if you don't take into account the functional purpose of any political regime. Your reasoning seems to be based on how effective each type of political regime is in terms of passing legislation, but not the type of legislation and for whom are they passed. But I can tell you, states (no matter what form such entities take) do not often pass legislation that's beneficial to the vast majority of the population. And they do not intend to do so, because they do not represent (nor are they meant to) the fictional 'general' or 'popular' interest politicos like to believe exist. I say fictional because there is no such thing as a common people bound together by some common characteristic like skin color, religion or any other cultural distinction you can come up with. What do we have? We have a global population divided into classes within and across 'national' boundaries. And taking place within and across these national boundaries is a class struggle. As a result of this division into classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), we have states which comes into existence for the sole purpose of securing this order. It holds this society together. Without it, the bourgeoisie would be left defenseless. The state protects and advances the 'business' of the bourgeoisie, not because it is directly controlled by them, but because its existence depends on the existence of class relations, and its power (i.e. its ability to fund and expand it's activities) depends on the profits of the bourgeoisie. In other words, it is inextricably linked to the exploitation of the proletariat, and on the success of the economy, which that aforementioned exploitation entails. That is why the state always advances the collective interest of the bourgeoisie, at home and abroad. What is usually called 'national security', for example, is really the security of its national capital. So why do states embrace different political forms? One thing that should be noted is that the proletariat shouldn't accept any of this. And they have no natural predisposition to accept this unjust social order. So to keep them in line and obedient is one important function of the state. And how states do this isn't the same across the world. Depending on the material and economic circumstances, states adjust and structures its internal political life accordingly to what fits the situation. If you look at where 'representative democracies' often prosper, and where 'dictatorships' often do as well, you'll see that 'representative democracies' are more fit for capitalist societies where a substantial proportion of the population often have needs that go beyond basic physiological ones. Whereas in 'Third World' countries where meeting basic needs is a damn struggle, brute force is reasonable. In the 'First World', consent has to be manufactured through a massive propaganda apparatus and the working class there has to be given the illusion of 'political freedom' through electoral politics. If you look closer at the trends in 'First World' countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, you'll see widening inequalities and deepening poverty affecting large swathes of the working class. Which means it's going to take a lot more than manufactured consent to keep them in line, and that is why we see the increasing abandonment of civil liberties and expansion of surveillance methods of respective states. In sum, speaking in the American context, the US state is changing it's political form from that of 'representative democracy' to that of a more authoritarian regime to better cope with the anticipated class outburst. Conclusion: Whatever political forms states adopt depends on which one of them better suits their purpose of securing the class system, which wholly includes advancing the collective interest of it's national bourgeoisie. And it very much depends on the material circumstances upon which it has to operate. But I don't see why we should have to choose which form a state should adopt. I think its just absurd. And I hope I explained why it is.