I've always seen it as a matter of risk. You could have an absolute monarchy and end up with the smartest, most empathetic person in the world as your leader wh

I've always seen it as a matter of risk. You could have an absolute monarchy and end up with the smartest, most empathetic person in the world as your leader who would be a net-benefit to your society for years to come. You could also end up with a total asshole that you're stuck with until death do you part. Democracy (or perhaps bureaucracy) just de-risks the chance that your government fails you through diversification of parties involved, similar to diversifying your investment portfolio. Given that human nature tends to lead people into the "asshole" column, I can understand why democracy would be the preferable of the two approaches.