Can Democracy replace Dictatorship?

The question of how human beings should live together is one wise men have debated for a thousand years, at least.  Because it is in the news today, let's examine it from the perspectives we have been discussing.
##
Human beings are basically selfish, and unlikely to work as hard to support someone else as they will to support themselves and their own families.  This suggests that capitalism is more "natural" to our stage of development than, say, communism.  These are economic systems, however, not governing systems.
##
Human beings have both hierarchical and egalitarian aspects (for the sake of argument, one might almost call these male and female aspects, but that would be too simplistic by far).  The founding fathers of the U.S. agreed with this, and decided upon a democratic republic, which would have aspects embracing both the power of the masses and the inevitable reality of entrenched wealth and authority--as well as a barrier against the "ignorant mob." 
##
The average person has an average capacity, by definition.  We would like our leaders to be above average, for obvious reasons.  Most people make decisions based upon fear, greed, slogans, and unconscious belief systems (essence preceding existence or existence preceding essence being two powerful ones).  Because a lot of this stuff is unconscious, politicians on both sides of the political aisle can manipulate masses by pushing buttons, and do, all the time.  And have, since the days of Rome.
##
If it is true that the "best" form of government would be a benign dictator, the only problem is that no two people would ever agree completely on what that dictator's attributes, beliefs, values, and actions should be.  This would breed discontent, and eventually revolution.  Said dictator would then need greater and greater amounts of power to keep the rebels in line, leading to a level of oppression that would be phenomenal--or some kind of social engineering program designed to keep people from rebelling.  Ugh.
##
On the other hand, an absolute democracy would allow fad idea and mob rule to overcome the hard-won wisdom of thousands of years.  Some kind of constitutional democracy, with a balance of popular approval and ancient wisdom is probably the best idea human beings have come up with yet for a WORKABLE government.
##
But because power tends to collect in the hands of those strong enough to grasp it, ("who will inherit your empire?"  Alexander was asked by his eager generals.  "The strongest" he said.  And history professors have argued what he might have meant by this for centuries.  I have to laugh.  It seems obvious to me that he meant that the strongest would TAKE it, regardless of what anyone said or thought.)  and once people have power, they use everything in their control to hold onto it.  Like, say, the claim of divine right.  Hmmm.  I have beloved Moslem friends who feel the Arab royal families and ruling elites have hijacked Islam to legitimize their power, fostering a spiral of fanatical radical conservative Islam that has now become one of the most dangerous forces in the world.
It is probably this force, and the tyrannies that spawned it, that will be an obvious target of an attempt to democratize the world. 
##
Are there ugly, selfish aspects to this...ummm, dare we say crusade?  (Ouch!).  Sure.  There's oil out there.  Capitalism wants access to cheap labor, cheap materials, and open markets.  But then, ANY system tries to grow and dominate.  Compared to most other forms of political domination, Capitalism ain't bad. 
##
But is there another choice?  If we see ourselves entering into perhaps a century of conflict, is the end game just more domination?  It doesn't have to be.  All of this conflict is on the level of first and Third Chakra.  but in the 20th Century, there was an undeniable and fascinating attempt to move beyond Nationalism.  However fragile and impotent the initial efforts of the League of Nations, NATO, the U.N., etc. may seem to some, it was just amazing...and inevitable.
##
Life continually attempts to reorganize itself at higher and higher levels.  What is really going on here, is that the concept of Nations is obsolete. That within a few generations (say...200 years?) there will be less difference between America and China than there is between California and Texas. Commerce, communication, travel, the fall of language barriers due to computers, nonlinear interaction via the Web and its unimagined descendants, all point toward human beings having a unique opportunity to become...whatever they really are.
##
My belief?   We are constantly evolving protoplasm.  We are creatures moving away from pain and toward pleasure.  We are beings who live in a constant state of loneliness and fear.  And those basic drives mean we are also angels pretending to be ants.  I have no fear of what we are, in our potential.  I have nothing but raw optimism for where we are going.  I do not endorse Bush's program, but I pray that whatever comes out of it will cause more growth than destruction. I do not know: my eyes are too small.
##
But I believe in US, brothers and sisters.  I believe in human beings, and what we have always been, and in what we have the capacity to be.  And the challenge of the 21st Century is to wake up, in a way we never have.  To each and every one of us be beacons of truth, as I am, in my own small way, trying to do in this blog.  To join hands.  To speak our hearts. To be strong, and compassionate, and loving, and filled with unconquerable energy.
##
The future awaits.  Our children and grandchildren need us to shed our cynicism and fear, and show that we are capable of controlling our fates, that we need no dictators...for trust me, they will always be there to pick up the reins if we do not.