I'm not saying democracy is a failed project all together, but something that has been on my mind a lot recently is that democracy is quite inefficient - where I'm from anyway (New Zealand). We are a small country, with general elections every four years. So most of the decisions our government takes a less bold, and optimized for short term interests and to get the next cycle vote. And when we have had times a government has made plans for a large infrastructure project, a successive government will come in and undo all of that planning.
For example, Auckland, our major economic hub, doesn't even have proper public transportation, and now citizens are battling with issues commuting to and from work.
I think part of Singapore's success has been it's ability to make bold decisions and see it through without worrying about short term election cycles.
You're pinning a people problem on democracy. If the people of New Zealand are happy being a little out of the way island that is a nice place for a holiday then that is what they'll be. If they want to be as economically prosperous as Singapore then they have to argue it out and get a critical mass of people to decide that they want to be wealthier in a take-concrete-actions sort of way. They can do that if they want and they don't need long term government projects to achieve it. There aren't that many people on the islands, it is a pretty homogeneous place and they don't need any help coordinating themselves.
You can come up with a government that does less well at giving people what they want (surprisingly easy to do) but the obvious downside of that is people will be getting less of what they want. For example I have little doubt New Zealanders would be incensed if government spending dropped to Singaporian levels.
But most New Zealander's aren't happy with the way things are. That's the point. That's why I used public transport as an example. Most working New Zealander's are unhappy about the public transport system, and always compare it to other major cities (Sydney, London, etc) and how we massively fall short. But the times where a government has tried to carry out the major work, it either gets reversed when a successive govt takes over, or the cost is too high for it to be palatable to decrease spending elsewhere to fund it.
You may say, well, democracy brings in the next government, and they're carrying out the policies that they campaigned for. But my point isn't that democracy is failing, it's the mechanisms. The 4 year term means even governments that do think a massive public transport overhaul is needed won't do it because cutting costs elsewhere to fund it will lead to losing the next term.
So I do partially agree with you in that it is ultimately a people problem. But short election cycles shape how those people's preferences are expressed and acted upon.
> The 4 year term means even governments that do think a massive public transport overhaul is needed won't do it because cutting costs elsewhere to fund it will lead to losing the next term.
Good? The point of democracy is for the government to do things that there is a consensus that it ought. No consensus, no action. If people would not vote for the policy then they government shouldn't do it.
You're describing a situation where most New Zealanders seem to be happy with the status quo. If they're going to vote out a government that spends money on public transport then the right thing for the government to do is not start tilting at expensive windmills. The issue with a place as small as New Zealand is that democracy just does a pretty good job of implementing the policies that most people want. The smaller the polity, the more the failures of the polity are just a reflection of its own desires. Election cycle length doesn't change that, it takes ideological change and persuasion.
For example, Auckland, our major economic hub, doesn't even have proper public transportation, and now citizens are battling with issues commuting to and from work.
I think part of Singapore's success has been it's ability to make bold decisions and see it through without worrying about short term election cycles.