Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The suboptimal cases are autocracy with bad leaders or democracy with good leaders If we're talking real-life dictatorships and republics, the latter make much better use of brilliant leaders' talents. In part by not having a power struggle at the end that, on a coin flip, decides if the work survives.
In the short or intermediate term? I'd argue that democracy is almost always a roadblock to a great leader's ability to execute their vision quickly and fully. On the other hand, it often wins out in the long run by not losing as much when the inevitable terrible leader comes to power. (As well as providing a pressure release mechanism to prevent populist revolution)
Quickly and fully, sure. In the end, however, good ideas see daylight. (Even if it means the other side co-opts and renames it!) That doesn’t happen in autocracies because the same people remain in power longer; this means by the time the opposition dies everyone who supported or potentially remembered it (or the opportunity it was meant to capitalise on) is gone.
More than that, republics have historically been far superior at integrating other cultures. That process of appropriation means the source for good ideas is wider than the population, something autocracies can only achieve with money and thus not at scale and in limited scope. (Engineers working for the KSA aren’t changing its culture, they’re building a block.)