I think the Indian sub-continent did alright with democracy but I wouldn't say it was always the best choice. Singapore did well with a "benevolent authoritaria

I think the Indian sub-continent did alright with democracy but I wouldn't say it was always the best choice. Singapore did well with a "benevolent authoritarian" founder who actively tried to minimize ethnic and racial differences and focusing on improving living standards and building institutions. Most of the Indian subcontinent has leaders who can attribute their electoral success, at least partially, to pitting one group against another or to populist promises. Because their political capital is tied to one group and/or populist policies, they find it hard to spend it on improving integration between communities or driving pragmatic but unpopular policies that improve living standards in the long-run.