Having one ruler would make it to where only the “king” and his “friends” benefit from the decisions made. Sadly, this doesn’t support the masses, most of the time, and always leaves at least one group of people out of the picture and unaccounted for. Even though I’m sure, if you found the right person, a single man could rule a country correctly, an Oligarchy and/or a Tyranny are not the solution to democracy’s problems; it’s the complete opposite. In Conclusion, it’s hard to fix something when it’s great. Democracy is that way. It has its problems but so do all forms of government. Democracy just happens to be the best option we have discovered so far. When something has a ton of problems, it’s easy to jump in and fix a few and not really worry about the consequences. When something has very few problems it’s hard to fix them without causing more problems therefore making the “fix” not worth the side effects. This is why Plato and Aristotle had a hard time coming up with a solution to democracy. If an elephant is holding a baby elephant by it’s trunk do you really thing you can give the baby a bath without causing the first elephant to have some negative reaction towards you? Now you can replace the baby elephant with another animal that’s clean but it’s hard to fine-tune something that works pretty well. If a county were force to change their governing structure, I would go with Plato’s solution with using democracy but only have “philosopher kings” rule to stop their country from becoming an international