Democracy is an unstable isotope of government, with a short half-life; unless overthrown, it invariably decays into leaden bureaucracy, which generally comes a

Democracy is an unstable isotope of government, with a short half-life; unless overthrown, it invariably decays into leaden bureaucracy, which generally comes as something of a relief to all involved. Skipping the democratic phase entirely, and going straight to bureaucracy, seems like it will save a lot of trouble and time. Also, "rules [being] made centrally and applied to diverse populations with different priorities" is a more or less inevitable failure mode of federalism, however administered. (In fact, it's arguably the point of federalism.) As can be seen in the brief but instructive history of the United States, the representative-democratic method of rule is no insulation against this trait of the federal republic; indeed, a federal system offers broader scope than any other for the periodic paroxysms of popular madness which beset any democracy. These produce schisms between sections of the polity, and as these injuries heal, they form keloid plaques of bureaucracy which not only help seal the immediate breach but also help buffer the polity against future democratic spasm. Such proliferation of nonfunctional tissue is harmful to the organism in the long term, but from the individual point of view, life in a moderately senescent bureaucracy is often preferable to life in a young, agile, athletic democracy, simply because the former offers a vastly reduced likelihood of major upheaval.