Reading the analyses of bad things that happen in modern societies, it is difficult (once one has dropped the automatic assumption of its intrinsic superiority) to avoid the conclusion that democracy makes good government impossible.
And the more mature the democracy, the more widespread are democratic processes, the more this is the case.
And this is unavoidable since any individuals who do govern well and make good decisions that go-against the destructive effects of democracy, will soon find their good decisions undercut and reversed by the grinding of democratic processes.
Simply reading the coverage of any democratic process at any level - from a small committee running a small society, right up to the electoral machinations and voter-buying/ intimidation of nations and multi-national bodies - it is clear that such procedures prevent good government to the extent of the longer and more widespread they have become.
(Somehow, people engage in blatant attempts at manipulation of democratic processes, designed to and succeeding in subverting the spontaneous will, while yet regarding the outcome of this corruption as not just a self-evident Good, but as a transcendent value!)
Monarchists (I mean advocates of divinely-ordained monarchy) are usually criticized on the basis that Kings and Emperors are not necessarily good, and may be bad.
Perfectly true. Undeniable.
The best that can be said about divinely-ordained monarchy is that it can be good.
But democracy is necessarily bad, as we see all around us - democracy causes and prevents the solution of what are simple and (in principle) perfectly-soluble problems (such as the current economic crisis, inflation of money and educational certificates, continually-expanding state dependency).
Of course democracy doesn't do all this damage overnight - indeed, due to social inertial it has taken decades.
But that is not grounds for optimism; because inertia means that what took decades to become a problem will take (at least) decades to set right.