Of course I used proper numerous times, it was pre-emptive. I did that on purpose, because it's pointing to the ideal. If I just said government generically, someone would chime in and point out Stalin or North Korea etc. and then declare my entire point to be wrong due to worst case examples.
It does favor Western constitutional systems, they have worked very well overall and they're overwhelmingly and objectively superior in quality of life and happiness results. They've also tended to dramatically outperform other systems on income and wealth production, at all wealth brackets. People don't want to live in Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Venezuela, they want to live in Sweden, Finland, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Canada etc.
There are very, very few cases where this doesn't hold. Pick nearly any metric. Japan and South Korea both adopted Western style systems, the results speak for themselves compared to most other nations in Asia.
GDP per capita leaders (a decent proxy for overall economic development): Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, US, Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Canada, Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, Israel, France, UK, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Spain
It's dramatic to say the least. They're all using Western style systems of government.
The outlier list: Singapore, Qatar, UAE. Total population: 17 million, with two of those being energy states.
There are very few exceptions, with Singapore being among a tiny list of those that has been a bit at odds with traditional liberal democratic norms and still results in a high quality of life in most respects.
I wouldn't use Stalin's reign of terror and dictatorship as the role model for good government behavior or the ideal to pursue. Qualifying by saying "proper" is a necessity. I don't consider Stalin's approach to be a proper government in any regard. I'm skeptical that ruling solely through violence can be reasonably considered governing.