Democracy* can be just as flawed as an autocracy and often times is. It's why the world needs enlightened monarchs again with unlimited reform power
Yes, with democracy you have a mob of people of which 90% don't know shit about parties they vote for (basically people are not good rulers over themselves). But it is not like you even have any options since all the parties are trash. Then you have politicians who are elected and 95% of them primary goal is to be elected again and not to do sth good for the state. They also can break all their promises and nothing will happen. These politicians are easily corrupt since they need money for their campaign or just personal greed so rich people can influence them. Not to mention all the interregnums you get.
With absolutist you get a person who is raised to be a good ruler, his motive is to make his country great again. And he and his administration doesn't get fucked every 4 years by new political agenda but can work very effectively. It has been clear democracy can't work alone since early stages so we have mix of democracy and technocracy anyways.
Socrates said it well: If you were heading on a journey by the sea, who would you ideally want to decide who was in charge of the vessel just anyone or people educated in rules and demands of seafaring? The later of course. So why do we keep thinking that any person would be fit to judge who should be the ruler of a country? Here his point isn't necessarily that democracy is bad but that most people are not qualified for it. And I personally don't believe ever will be, and there is no real way of deciding who is fit to vote and who isn't, so there goes democracy.
