DEMOCRACY v. ANYTHING ELSE

 "Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised--except for all the other ways of government that have been tried and found wanting."  Sir Winston Churchill

As Winston Churchill was something of a historian, I for one am inclined to believe this quote of his.
The recent fascist thuggery at our Capitol, with large-scale abettance by individual police officers and/or departments, along with four years of Trumpery, has reactivated the debate about democracy v. anything else. Our democratic allies were watching in dismay and with bated breath while our autocratic traditional 'enemies' howled in thigh-slapping delight.
And commentators here have also remarked on how delightfully (to the autocrats) hypocritical our attempts to further 'democracy' over the globe look now and how the autocrats will be saying how democracy produces license and puts the least capable people into the seats of power. Not to mention the airy-fairy notions of Innate Human Goodness on which such 'nonsense' is based. First big mistake.
Democracy is based on exactly the opposite idea: we are all equally corruptible by power, including the economic power that is wealth. And this being the case, no individual nor small group of people can or should be trusted with too much power. And even no majority based on immutable but unimportant characteristics as skin shade or which way our hormones run can or should be trusted with power over those of smaller groups based on the same political trifles. And from this comes the observation that, the realer that equal rights for all becomes, the more secure everyone's rights are. Rights are not zero-sum; quite the contrary.
Such being the case, part of making democracy realer ought to be the limiting of privately-held wealth to, say, $500 million. This way, everyone can at least have enough with enough public goods for all including ecosystems. It might even re-introduce better ways of measuring societal happiness than said wealth. Besides, a study a few years ago showed, once the kids were educated, people protected against medical bankruptcy and people could retire in at least modest comfort, that was enough wealth for most people.
On the other hand, some autocrats might say, democracy, with its frequent elections, takes too little account of the future and of long-range necessities. I may be missing something, but I don't see any authoritarian or autocratic government taking more account of long-range needs than most democracies. Including today's Celestial Empire which now calls itself the People's Republic of China.
Democracy and Autocracy both have their weaknesses in inculcating the ethic of service necessary for and in any government. Democracies might offer more to the shifty cons than it should. But autocracy, and authoritarian regimes generally, tend to cultivate less of an ethic of service to the country at large than they encourage civil servants to kiss the Dear Leader's ass! It's a very bad idea to confuse Dear Leader's ample derriere with the country as a whole--even if said Leader voids on the country often enough! And non-democracies seem to encourage less seeing themselves as trustees than seeing the country as their private property, just as did Clovis, king of the Franks at the advanced age of fifteen (in 481 C.E.) and with about the same understanding of government as too many boys that age! Seems to me that this kind of setup produces at least as many Caligulas, Mad King Ludwigs and Bashar Assads as Marcus Aureliuses, Good King Wenceslases and Ataturks.
Democracy seems at least somewhat better in encouraging the necessary ethic of service to the country as a whole and all that is best in it. Its main drawback right now, fueled largely by white racism, seems to be a Dunning-Kruger effect which seems most pernicious in white males who come from inherited wealth and who, notwithstanding being mediocre students at their historic prep schools and colleges, often wind up in powerful and/or high-paying jobs in government and/or business.
Chances are good that we are in the threshold of making democracy realer than it's ever been here, and maybe anywhere else. I pray (literally) I may be right in perceiving this. Perhaps as we make democracy realer for more kinds of people, more creatures and living things generally, that Dunning-Kruger effect may evaporate and be replaced by respect for real but plainly-expressed (minimal shop talk, I mean) expertise. Another weakness of democracy is the idea that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge, to quote Isaac Asimov. Which it isn't, but autocrats have no reason to boast on this point! Authoritarian regimes by and large share this weakness in an aggravated form where Dear Leaders are concerned.
So long as we continue to strive to realize more and more of democracy, it will continue to have an edge on authoritarian and autocratic regimes. As true and as unflattering a knowledge of history is a very necessary part of this, as is ensuring that equal justice under law is real. As real for BLM as it is for pasty-faced fascist thugs, for example.