Democracy is probably the best system of government presently in use at the current time. But it is not ideal. Part of the problem is that government truly "by the people" is, by definition, going to result in decisions that are only of "average intelligence." For example: "Should we raise interest rates during inflaction?" The "average person" back in the 1970s said "That is stupid, things are already getting more expensive every day, if you raise inflation, things are just going to get more expensive." But the Federal goverment realized that yeah, short term things would suck more, but over the long run inflation would be curbed if you raised interest rates. So the government raised rates. This pissed off a whole bunch of people. But inflation slowed down, and eventually the "average person" realzied that he was wrong.
If America was a "true democracy" where the average person made all the decisions, America would have been stuck in runaway inflation. But luckily, the leadership of America, made decisions that were not in keeping with the "average person's" desires.
And therein lies the irony: In order for a democracy to work, it must not be ruled "by the people" but "by leaders smarter than the people." And just like it is possible for the average person to err regarding inflationary policies, it is also possible for the average person to err in choosing a good leader.
Luckily, even when the people choose a "worse" candidate for a leadership position, he can still do the job. Maybe not at 100% of what the other guy could have done, but maybe 85% percent of what the other guy could have done.
Therein lies the success of the American people. It has nothing to do with the system of government (ie democracy), it has to do with the quality of leadership candidates. One might argue that a democratic election is a better way to provide for quality candidates than say inheriting a kingdom from your father, but the point is that democracy, in and of itself doesn't guarantee a better way of life.
Democracy can be abused. Perhaps it is harder to abuse than say communism, but just installing a democracy doesn't guarantee a better country. If you don't have good leaders to elect, it doesn't matter if they come to power by democratic election or military prowess, the end result is the same: you have a bad person in charge of a country.
It is important to realize that installing democracy isn't a panacea for political ills. After deposing Saddam Hussein, George Bush seems to think that once we set up a democracy for the Iraqi people, that country isn't going to be a threat to national security anymore. But that's hogwash. The key to stability in the Middle East isn't installing democracy, it's training Iraqi leaders who know how to lead.
And therein lies the key to a Utopian society. It's not the one where the people have the most freedom to chose who leads them, it's the one where the best leaders end up in positions of leadership. And while right now, democracy is the best way to accomplish this, is there perhaps a better way?
I'm going to say yes. In Victor's own little world, the ideal goverment would be a dictatorial/communist/democracy. Granted those three systems are pretty far apart idealogically, but perhaps they are not mutually exclusive. In my scheme of things, Democracy would handle 80% of the governing, communism 19% and dictatorship 1%. Hopefully the strengths and of one system would balance the weaknesses of the other sytem. I would put democratically elected leaders in charge of 80-85% of the decision making. Just like in America, they would handle things like roads, industry regulation, taxes etc.
However 10-15% of the coutry would be communistic, insuring that everybody has a roof over their head an adequate nutrition and entertainment. They would build dorm-like residences in every city. So everyone would be assured of at least a tiny room with an uncomfortable bed. They'd also have unlimited access to granola bars and yogurt and multivitamins And they could watch all the TV they want, and have access to a computer for education. Oh, and they'd get healthcare: flushots and the like. Not everyone would be guaranteed of expensive MRIs and surgeries, but everyone would get immunizations and other cheaper preventative care.
Finally, there would be a 1% dictator, who would have absolute power over the country. Of course, absolute power corruputs absolutely, that's why he would never use it. In fact, the best and most celebrated Dictator would be the one who never did any work. He'd just study politics and diplomacy and maybe give advice, but never actually DO anything; unless it was an emergency. He could reset the system when democracy entropies to a halt. Or prevent the communists from taking too much from the rich. Anything he thought was necessary he could do. But if he did too much, people could assasinate him (legally). So he wouldn't want to exercise too much power, and people wouldn't want to assasinate him unnecesarily, because he might be replaced by an even worse dictator.
I think that governments will always decline with time. The best that you could hope for isn't to prevent this entropy, but have a system in place to control and reset the government in an orderly fashion.