good points and bad points about Democracy, Monarchy, Dictat

It makes sense to talk about the above topics since we discuss them appropriately.
Advantages and disadvantages of democracy
All democracies (and every other form of government) have certain structural defects, which are related to the nature of democracy. Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform. Two prominent defects are related to the territory and membership of the demos itself.
Inappropriate borders
The demos is a fixed unit - in practice a nation-state - and it may not be an appropriate unit for decision. It may not correspond territorially with the appropriate reach of the decision. For instance, the Rhine and Danube basins have an international authority, but it there is no 'demos' corresponding to a river basin. Some versions of bioregionalism propose to create them, to take natural units rather than nations as the basis for units of government. The nation-state as demos is often too large for internal regional issues, but that can be resolved by devolution of powers. It may be too small for global issues, and as yet there is no simple resolution to that issue. Democracy rejects by definition political participation by non-members of the demos. No international organisation has a directly elected administration, or a multi-party system, or anything comparable to the features of liberal democracy. To supporters of democratic world government that is a failure of democracy, and they have made proposals for direct elections of the United Nations Security Council, and the U. N. Secretary-General. However, they remain a minority: most supporters of democracy identify the demos, without question, as the nation. Subjecting it to decisions taken by supranational electorates would in their eyes destroy democracy, not enhance it.
Immigrants and 'the people'
Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.
The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections. However, the idea of 'foreigners' voting in national elections is unacceptable to many nationalist parties in the EU, and politically contentious. In most cases they remain excluded from suffrage. Democracy is the only form of government which specifically excludes immigrants from political decision-making.
Ethnic and religious conflicts
Democracy, and especially liberal democracy, necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos are in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, it is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of Soviet bloc states led to wars and civil war in the former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova. Nevertheless, some supporters of democracy claim that statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.
Bureaucracy
A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Changing laws make it impossible for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. A legal system where any ordinary citizen can expect to be breaking some law in ignorance most of the time is an invitation for law-enforcement to misuse power. This continual complication of the law is also seen by some as contrary to the simple and eternal natural law - bringing the whole legal system into disrepute.
Democracies have also been criticised for slowness and complexity in their decision-making.
Short-term focus
Modern liberal democracies, by definition? allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make term long predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.
Public choice theory
Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behavior of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society.
Plutocracy
The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favors the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. He concludes:"A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."
Private ownership of the media may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship.
Tyranny of the majority
Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it will become a "tyranny of the majority." The expression was coined by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - not then referring to democratic government, but to social conformity. The issue of majority dominance was however known during the ancient Greek democracies. It is independent of universal suffrage, but it implies a broad franchise (otherwise there would be conflicting minorities). It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalised (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.
Proponents of democracy make a number of defences concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority.
A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.
Political stability
One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.
Political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. This can take the form of Bipartidism, where power is shared only by two parties, alternating the roles of governing and opposition. This is common in democracies where the electoral system favors two-party systems.
Effective response in wartime
A pluralist democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced, although sometimes the executive has that power (subject to informing the legislature). If conscription is instituted, a democracy would allow protest against it. Monarchies and dictatorships can (in theory) act immediately and forcefully. However, not everyone sees this as a disadvantage. The 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory, sees it as an advantage of democracy, that these factors might prevent a war. In practice, all types of states have gone to war, and historic monarchies also had procedures for declaring war. Historically, most democratic states succeeded in maintaining their security.
Some research indicates that democracies perform better in wartime than non-democracies, i.e. they are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. Aji Choi attributes this primarily to the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined by which democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars. Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources, or selection of wars with a high chance of winning.
Corruption
Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of corruption in established democracies.
Poverty and famine
There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (democracies) generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish. Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument.
Similarly, internal inequalities are often discounted in assessing the standard of living in democracies. In some democratic states, a high national score on the human development index (HDI) is accompanied by differentials in health, education, and income among ethnic groups. In the United States, in every state, infant mortality is higher for African-Americans then for whites.
The long-term downward trend in US infant mortality has not benefited Blacks and Whites equally. The Black/White disparity in infant mortality has not only persisted but increased over time and is not expected to diminish in the near future. Educational inequalities have also widened, and racial disparities have generally increased across all educational levels.
Supporters of democracy emphasise the high average scores of democracies, although the strong inequalities in the United States depress its average scores on health and social indicators, compared to other developed democracies. Again, it is logically consistent with majority rule, that the majority can allocate itself better access to social infrastructure such as education and health care. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage of democracy is a value preference.
The politicised dispute on democracy and poverty is further complicated by the parallel development of liberal democracy and historic capitalism, during and after the industrial revolution. It is therefore difficult to distinguish cause and effect. Some American pro-capitalism groups support the theory that more capitalism increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratisation. In such theories, democracy will not bring prosperity, but results from prosperity. Political supporters of democracy tend to argue that it is itself causal.The issue has been further complicated by the economic success of China and other non-democratic states in Asia. In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs conclude: Until quite recently, conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably - and fairly quickly - to democracy... The fact that almost all of the richest countries in the world are democratic was long taken as iron-clad evidence of this progression. Recent history, however, has complicated matters. As events now suggest, the link between economic development and what is generally called liberal democracy is actually quite weak and may even be getting weaker... the growing number of affluent authoritarian states suggests that greater wealth alone does not automatically lead to greater political freedom.