The necessary premise of any meaningful discourse is to define what we are talking about; in our case, what we mean by the term democracy.

Instead, generally speaking, when people talk about democracy each person thinks of their own ideal model, which differs from one individual to another and which is not realized, generally not even realizable: the discussion therefore becomes inconclusive.
If, on the other hand, by democracy (communism, fascism) we mean what has actually been realized, showing strengths and weaknesses and possible improvements (nothing is perfect), then our discourse becomes a concrete, political, historical reflection and takes on meaning.
We must give meaning to our words if we want our discourse to have meaning.
Therefore, here we use the term democracy to indicate those regimes which, since the end of the eighteenth century, have spread with great difficulty in the West and are now present and stable, and are also spreading in other parts of the world (but not everywhere).

Often, instead, one starts from the democracy of Athens. Let us set aside the fact that, to be precise, what we call democracy in Greek was called politeia (Aristotle), while democracy was the rule of the people that excluded the aristocracies. But this is of no importance, because we are talking about contemporary Western regimes, which have almost nothing to do with Greek governments.
It is often thought that democracy is the direct rule of the people, but this is not the case.
In no democracy does the people govern directly; they simply choose the rulers according to a general political orientation (often very vague).

In the Constitution, in fact, it is stated that
“Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it in the forms and within the limits of the Constitution”: in practice, they vote for the political orientation of those who govern.
Ultimately, all constitutional principles then refer back to the laws that interpret them.
To govern a state (or a shop or anything else) capable people are required: there is always a ruling class, an elite that governs. In democracies it is divided into general political orientations, and the people can choose, but not govern directly.

Today, democracy is sometimes thought of as a set of regimes that reject war or territorial expansion, but in the nineteenth century democracies actually conquered almost the entire world (colonialism).
The so-called partitocracy is also thought of as a degeneration of democracy, but in reality democracies in the West have in fact stabilized and organized themselves through parties: when parties are lacking, democracies are fragile.
One does not vote for a person, but for a political orientation.

Along with voting, democracy is characterized by freedom of expression, which is the indispensable premise of free elections: even in non-democratic countries today one generally votes.
The problem then arises as to whether opinions and votes should be allowed for parties and ideological orientations that are opposed to democracy. In realized democracies this is generally permitted; otherwise we would have to exclude a part of the population and, if it were substantial or even a majority, we would end up giving power to a minority.
In fact, this is what happened at the beginning, when universal suffrage had not yet been established as an essential element. For example, at the time of Italian unification, illiterates were excluded from voting: thus, in practice, only wealthy people voted and therefore pursued their own interests.
In recent Italian history one could perfectly well vote for the Communist Party, initially led by one of Stalin’s major collaborators (“adda veni baffone,” as people used to say).
Even today one can vote for fascists, even if in theory this is prohibited.
We should bear in mind that fascisms established themselves in democratic countries also through a kind of popular vote.

The essential point is that democracy is possible only in those countries in which, in general, the population accepts it.
In the Middle East, as in China, this popular will does not exist, and therefore democracy does not take hold.
It is often said that it is true that communists were allowed to vote, but only because it was certain that they would not win, and that if a victory had appeared on the horizon there would have been a coup d’état (Pinochet-style, so to speak).
I do not know whether this would have happened, but one must consider that the problem was not within a single state, but at the global level, because communists believed they had to establish themselves throughout the world (proletarian internationalism), and Western countries believed they had to contain them (the Truman Doctrine). Now we are in a very different situation.

However, it seems to me that the general problem is this: should the formation of parties opposed to democracy be allowed? Some say no (Popper among them). But if we had done so after the war, we would have had to exclude the communists, a substantial part of the population, and then we would not have had a democracy.
I believe that no one should be excluded, not even those opposed to democracy; but if they win elections, then it means that the population does not share democracy, and therefore, as I said, it is impossible in that country.
If fascism established itself, it was because a Bolshevik revolution on the Russian model was looming, which would have abolished democracy, and thus fascism presented itself as an alternative to that rather than to democracy itself: in fact, at a certain point it obtained a majority in Parliament.

These are some of the characteristics of realized democracy: it has its limits, like every other form of government, and in my opinion one must look at the economic, civil, and cultural context. In fact, democracy is defined as “the least bad” of political systems: this means that it has fewer defects than the others; this is said to clarify that it is not the perfect system.

It would be absurd to say that democracy (or any regime) is the best of all possible ones: it is said that democracy is the best regime realized so far, and that it is the least bad because it nevertheless has its defects.
We can make all the criticisms we want, but we must compare it with other forms of government: dictatorship, absolute monarchy, the feudal system, and so on.

Moreover, democracies and non-democracies have strengths and weaknesses: one must consider the social, economic, and cultural context. In the West it works; in the Middle East it does not.
So which system is better than democracy, and why?

“Dictator” is a particular term, revived in the last century, which indicated that a single person interpreted the true popular will better than elections: therefore, following the dictator meant following the true popular will. Fascisms led to the horrific disaster of the world war.
In communist systems, on the other hand, it was a party that represented the true self-consciousness of the people; they have all failed and collapsed on their own in comparison with Western democracies.
In absolute monarchies, instead, it was the king who interpreted true justice and was therefore supported by divine grace; but no one seriously thinks of returning to them.

So we can say that there are democracies (of various degrees) and non-democracies of countless kinds (in Tibet the Dalai Lama is even the reincarnation of the previous one).
Now, it is not said that one of these forms of government is good and effective everywhere. For millennia democracy did not exist, and now it seems instead to be the right one everywhere.
But it does not always work: see, for example, the American failure to impose democracy in Middle Eastern countries (by now we have given up on that).
One must look at real results.

It seems to me that the most advanced, prosperous, and free countries are democratic countries, and therefore I deduce that, at the moment, the best (or least bad) form of government is democracy. In the future, I do not know.
It is often said that the democratic West is in crisis, but it remains not only the most prosperous part of the world, but also in some way the most advanced, which the rest of the world looks to. Let us consider that science also remains a heritage of the West, even though people born in other civilizations contribute to it: think, for example, of the digital revolution, AI, quantum computers—all products of the West.
Therefore, democracy has been more successful than the other regimes that, over the last century, have competed for the governance of the world: communisms, dictatorships, military regimes of all kinds.

I am left, however, with the doubt as to whether our countries are more advanced because they are democratic, or whether they are democratic because they are more advanced. In other words, is democracy one of the causes of well-being, or is it a result of it?
In any case, democracy has emerged victorious at least up to now. What will happen tomorrow, no one knows. Perhaps China could overtake the West, but this still seems very, very far away.