In the context of HN it seems more the opposite, as everyday there are comments to the effect that such and such interest groups are stalemating each other in pursuing any substantive change.

The two points aren't mutually exclusive. That sort of scleroticism can happen as systems become less representative.

If there is no effective mechanism to remove populist decision makers who act like authoritarians, they will slowly accumulate and co-opt the levers of power, even in ostensibly democratic nations.

Look at nations like Turkey, Hungary, Russia. Technically democracies, with some distant memories of fair competitive elections, but everyday people have very little ability to influence their governments' actions today.

It's considered rude when someone attempts to speak for the entire reader-base on HN.

Huh, this is the third identical reply from 'kjs3' to 3 different comments on very different posts, with no seeming connection.

Surprisingly, I only noticed this 9 days later, it must have been overlooked several times.

I had thought the account got hacked but since the recent submission history seems to be of a person, this is likely a weird attempt at low-effort trolling?

Bizarre, and I don't even know who 'kjs3' is!

I think authoritarian is good for developing because it is efficient; democracy is good for developed because it is more fair. A country will be more authoritarian when economy is bad, and will be more democrat when economy is good.

> A country will be more authoritarian when economy is bad, and will be more democrat when economy is good.

If that was true, then why is China not a democracy?

Democracy is not the equilibrium state of human organization according to history.