>Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."
No. Democracy is the best form of government discovered so far because it allows voters to remove incompetent leaders and bad policies without violence.
However competent a king or dictator is, most of his competence will be directed towards remaining in power through military force, rather than addressing his country's real problems. He cannot be removed without risking civil war, which is the worst kind.
However incompetent a prime minister or president turns out to be, and however dull voters are, incompetence is easier to recognise than competence.
Besides, one doesn't necessarily need to personally recognise it: one can be persuaded by other people. It's easier to reach agreement about things that aren't working.
No. Democracy is the best form of government discovered so far because it allows voters to remove incompetent leaders and bad policies without violence.
However competent a king or dictator is, most of his competence will be directed towards remaining in power through military force, rather than addressing his country's real problems. He cannot be removed without risking civil war, which is the worst kind.
However incompetent a prime minister or president turns out to be, and however dull voters are, incompetence is easier to recognise than competence.
Besides, one doesn't necessarily need to personally recognise it: one can be persuaded by other people. It's easier to reach agreement about things that aren't working.