You ask a pertinent question that unfortunately will be shut down. The pro democracy movement has convinced us that even villagers in Africa should have a say in our monetary policy. No I am not saying villagers in Africa are stupid, they just have not been exposed to monetary policy. Same way I know nothing about diesel engines but I know about SQL. Democracy says we all have a say even in things we don't understand so we, particularly Africa end up with charismatic leaders who are willing to wing it. I gather from the little bits of history that I have read that most development in the West didn't happen under democratic rule. It is only relatively recently that the common man has had a say. Trouble with dictatorships is that you get good and bad. Rwanda and South Korea have thrived under "dictatorships". Whereas we have become a dysfunctional state. If only there was a way of selecting benevolent dictators and removing them. Alas there is no clear path.

I suspect that democracy is mostly an independent factor from effective economic development. You can have policies and power structures that facilitate or hinder development under all forms of government.

Though I do think there may be an inhibition of development for economics that accept austerity and classical international investments advice.

Isn't India as a country much more diverse than China? I mean I realise China is diverse too but in comparison. Putting a heavy yoke on a diverse country sounds like a recipe for rebellion.

India has 20+ languages with atleast one million speakers. China has one common uniting language Mandarin. I speak 3 Indian languages, yet when I moved to a new state for work, none of those languages help me while communicating with locals.

Yasheng Huang: Does democracy stifle economic growth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR-uWwvpn5c