Russia and Venezuela simply never developed a civil society in the modern sense. Same for many poor and unstable countries. They're still likely far better off than similarly vulnerable autocracies - I'd much rather be in one of those flawed democracies than, say, in North Korea. 'Competent leaders' are not born, they're made. Democracy, liberal/bourgeois values, civil society, proper rewards for merit... All of these things ultimately foster competence.
> Russia and Venezuela simply never developed a civil society in the modern sense.
Isn't that the fault of democracy then? How can democracy be so great if it can't even help develop basic civil society? So now you are moving the goalpost from political government to civil society? So it's civil society that's important not democracy?
> I'd much rather be in one of those flawed democracies than, say, in North Korea. '
And most people would rather live in china or vietnam than many of those flawed democracies.
> Democracy, liberal/bourgeois values, civil society, proper rewards for merit...
That's not what honest look at political history shows. We're told hitler was the worst thing in history and democracy gave us hitler.
> All of these things ultimately foster competence.
I'd say it fosters corruption rather than competence. And everyone from the founding fathers to the ancient greeks would have agreed.
There are merits to all forms of governance. Nothing magical about democracy as I've shown. What you need is competence. Doesn't matter the form of government.
