Is democracy truly better than dictatorship?

 History has had its share of both crippling dictatorships and fair democracies, as well as visionary dictatorships and corrupt democracies. Many countries such as Libya and Burkina Faso reached their peak under firm dictator rule, but countries like France and the USA are examples of countries that have reached their peak under democracy. This goes on to say about how a certain country's prosperity depends on the development of the region during the dictatorship or democracy, as well as the leaders themselves. 

For example, Burkina Faso and Libya were very underdeveloped during the establishment of the dictatorship, and by the end of it, they were developed enough and started to prosper under a democratic form of government. For example, Thomas Sankara, the first dictator of Burkina Faso led the country to a golden age after leading a coup on the French leader then. However, the deputy of Thomas, Blaise Compaore led a coup against Thomas Sankara and became the second dictator of Burkina Faso. The country was then set on a course for steady decline because of embezzlement of money, accumulation of loans from the World Bank, and overall corruption. People in Burkina Faso to this day think of Thomas Sankara as a revolutionary hero and many consider him their role model in Africa. 

And thus, we have two contrasting ideas. Dictatorship, the symbol of control, and democracy, the symbol of freedom. Control has proved to be a lot more effective in underdeveloped regions to slowly educate and civilize them but in the same way, freedom is the most effective in already developed regions that contain already educated citizens who can think for themselves and question their state of living. Thus, it can be said that democracy is not truly better than dictatorship, but definitely better in the aforementioned situation. Dictatorships often controlled beliefs and opinions in favour of them, to ensure a stable rule.This brings us to the question: Does controlling the beliefs and opinions of society generally benefit them?

The answer is yes when looked at a utilitarian perspective. However, from a deontological perspective, it is definitely not because no matter how stable of a reign would be ensured, it restricts one from abiding by their morals freely. Thus, it can be concluded that such arguments are largely subjective, and it depends on what the majority of the citizens think.