Only in like the last year have I come to believe Democracy is superior to autocracy. "Well if you can have more stability" I thought, but autocracy isn't more stable, it's less stable because one person with absolute power means the whole state runs on policy based on one person's whims. That said, I still could see a successful, modern state with a minimal number of elected officials if there existed a bureaucracy true to the word - rule by bureaus. Where experts are internally appointed by experts to run a country. Some measure of voting would probably have to be incorporated to act as a check on corruption, and perhaps more importantly justify the experts to the population, plus a strong internal investigative body, but I think it would be feasible. Does anyone have an explanation for why it wouldn't besides that I'm not going to do it and it definitely won't happen?
keepc.png
md5: 43cbb286... 🔍
