I'm hopeful. "The logic of political survival" (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival ) is one of many books that make a decent case for democratic systems simply being better than authoritarian (in the long run), the more democratic the better. This old journal article while dated and possibly no longer accurate about the arab world give a military perspective on the same dynamics https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

It's important to remember that 100 years ago (if you squint, 150 years no contest, there basically was no democracy in the modern sense (universal suffrage, no special rights), kings and queens and aristocrats still held most power and wealth in most places around the world. It's very easy to forget that the descendants of these aristocrats in places where lasting measures against the lingering power of the old rich weren't taken (i.e., they weren't executed and their wealth was left intact) are usually still in the richest 100 families of the country and wield considerable political influence.

I will stop here now because dang has repeatedly asked me not to make statements likely to inflame "boring" political discussions but I do think that as more and more people realize that they are not in fact temporarily embarrassed millionaires the old power bases of corruption and uncapped dynastic wealth will follow the way of dynastic hegemony over nations.

>"the more democratic the better"

I no longer believe this to be the case. I am pro-democracy but I am not a suffrage maximalist. During the last election cycle I looked at the myriad of obscure positions I had the right to vote for on the ballot and I realized most of what I was voting for I was unqualified to weigh in on.

For instance, why do I vote for the Railroad Commissioner? Why do I vote for my local county's community college board of trustees seat 5 and 6? You could say that I should be informing myself before I go to cast the ballot. While you wouldn't be wrong for saying that is my responsibility as a voter, I can assure you virtually no one actually does this. I also find the down ballot candidate's pitches so generic and milquetoast that there isn't enough substance to actually distinguish between them.

What's worse is that the obscure positions have either unopposed candidates or just two. And most of the time, people just look for the (R) or the (D) by the name and that's what they go on.

More democracy does not necessarily mean more committees in a big centralised state. One problem I personally have with representative democracy is that the representative class will proliferate. If e.g. the railroad/community was organised as a co-op with special legislative constraints, you could have democratic oversight without these meaningless elections. Compulsory, random chance representation or coercive voting with a review by your successors are also mechanisms which could be explored. Even a well designed market could serve that purpose.

"more democracy" simply means we do not just give one dude (and it's still most often a dude) the keys to power and call it a day and instead think about how to distribute this power so that it stays functional enough to produce public goods, but smeared around finely enough that it's hard to abuse.

While HN might not be the place for "boring" political discussions (no doubt that flame wars and conspiracy theories cloy), do you have another venue that you publish your thoughts on? I quite enjoyed this comment and learned quite a bit reviewing the linked information. Thoughtful political dialogue is ever necessary and frequently absent.

I'm reworking my website (see my profile/email) and will try to put them there as I finish my PhD. Just need to find rhr time to do it properly. It's one thing to type out comments, it's another to publish self contained text and claims.