As for stability, the biggest single point of failure in monarchies is line of succession. There have been many wars inside monarchies over disputes on that matter, and there is no reason to believe that those with superior education would settle for anything less than superior ambition if presented with an opportunity by a less-than-ideal successor.
Yes, which is why I specified "multilayered succession system". For a monarchy to last, one needs to introduce some kind of selection process. The Saudis, for example, seem to have that sort of system. No "fixed" heir, but instead they have several crown princes whose order of succession is fluid. At the same time, like the British, there should be a long line of succession, with enough backup candidates so that everyone can't be wiped out in a single disaster of any kind. Succession problems can and has been solved by modern monarchies. Open warfare for the crown is unheard of today, even in states with absolute monarchies.
But every democracy has a system of checks and balances - if a dictator decides to eliminate someone for arbitrary reasons, there is pretty much no resistance. You can see the most insane mandates enacted - look no further than the antics Carribean dictators got up to with absolute power. They might even be entertaining if not for the magnitude of suffering they caused.
However, even Donald Trump can't order journos shot on the streets, no matter how much he hates them - at most, you might see right wing media subtly incite violence. A bad dictatorship can do much more damage than a bad democracy.
Trump once said he could kill a person in Times Square in broad daylight and he wouldn't lose support. Now, his enemies would certainly try to have his head if he tried - but the big question is, what if the majority wants
him to shoot people on the street? A year ago, this would've been a hypothetical scenario I'd have to make up for the sake of the argument. Not anymore. What if people want
the roving lunatic? A year ago, the obvious retort would be "come on, they're not that
dumb". Again, not anymore.
If you want a better democracy, you need better people. And the best way to make better people lies in proper care and education of children and good parenting. That is where those who do think can make a difference. Start with educating the deluded who thought our current immigration policies are anything but a dysfunctional mess and insisting that they are a good thing left us vulnerable to being played like a cheap fiddle.
A tall order. Very tall. Don't you think that people aren't trying? Schoolteachers, professors, educational TV hosts... all try. And yet, it's not enough. TBH, maybe that's why democracy is starting to fail. Freedom of speech, it turns is a double edged sword. On the internet, you can find anything
. So why listen to those eggheads when there's this cool guy telling you that the aliens are to blame for all this? Moreover, it's easier to blame the aliens (from space or from Mexico, take you pick) than yourself and your own neighbors. Simple people will always prefer simpler solutions, even if they are too simple for them to actually work. The sad truth is, it's easier to change the government than to change the people.
If anything a democracy may/will go into failure mode if your education slips below a certain level and arguably we are seeing some of this in current politics. But democracy's ultimate failure mode basically is that it is being replaced by a worse system, i.e. theocracy or autocracy, and we all know how that always turned out, historically. So if you have "unwashed masses who can't think" that is not an argument against democracy Dragon, ... but that is a huge wakeup call that you have to take government seriously again and invest into education, if you want to preserve your democratic system.
Lots of people take democracy for granted these days ... but I would argue it is actually a rather fragile system depending on a lot of factors to run smoothly and endure the test of time. Getting rid of it to in favor of autocracy and expecting things to get "better" is nothing short of naive. Short term, maybe, if (and that is a gigantic IF!) you find a perfect selfless ruler that never gets corrupted by his power. Long term however, history proves you utterly false either way.
Do you realize that you've just dismissed the greatest argument democracy might have going for it? That is, political stability. And actually, you're right. It is actually rather fragile. It's not that it can't work - it did, after all, work in the US, even when the rest of the world was autocratic and outright imperialist. You know why it was so? Because Americans were so proud of it. Unlike European nations, the US did not exist before democracy, and it was created with people for whom it was a cornerstone. They didn't take it for granted for all these years, instead fighting tooth and nail to preserve the fragile system. And it worked for nearly thrice as long as it did for Europe.
Education is indeed important, but education doesn't bestow intellect. You can't educate some people past a certain level, though you can indoctrinate them (which does help uphold democracy, to your credit). A wakeup call, yes, but were those people ever awake? As I said above, today, smart people no longer have monopoly on information. Idiots could speak, but would go unheard, simply because barriers to being widely heard were higher. Now, they can choose among countless places all competing to tell them what to think. Suddenly, it turns out that truth and logical reasoning don't have the appeal of pretty lies and oversimplified conclusions.
Education really is key. I doubt we'd get people bashing/devaluing democracy with more historic literacy.
Democracy indeed isn't the best system because it leads to the best decision in every situation. It is the best system (that we know of) because the alternatives have historically been proven to always lead to horrible atrocities. I.e. Neverending religious wars in theocracies and succession wars in autocracies as well as your and every other citizens very life and physical wellbeing being threathened by the whims of the current leader/ruler/regime.
For the record, my cousin is a historian and I'm keenly interested in history myself. It's not a matter of historical literacy. It's you who don't have the history straight. The entire world
was ruled by monarchs, as was the Roman Empire in its best years. I don't know what country you're from (based on our discussion so far, I'd guess America), but in Poland, the time of Jagiellonian kings is remembered very fondly. The times when our record is the most spotty is, guess what, the period during which Poland became democratic (well, as democratic as you could be back then, it was actually an elective monarchy). True, the power still rested with the nobility, but the king was elected and had to abide by the proto-constitution. England had its best years under kings and queens. Elizabeth I, Victoria, Henry VIII (his marriage antics aside), just to name a few, are still fondly remembered. Somehow, many people forgive them their flaws, because they made the country stronger. It's not the case of history through rose-tinted glasses. One look at history of Poland, England, France, Russia or any other longstanding country will show that the time of the kings wasn't
a string of succession wars. For most part, succession went without fuss. Autocracy, when done right, can work and there's over 2000 years of historical evidence pointing to that. Come to think of it - nobody could even imagine
the level of atrocities committed by Nazis and Soviets (who both ended up in power by "vox populi", even if they later turned dictatorial). Armenian Genocide (under Ottomans) comes close, but even then, it wasn't really an industrialized, coordinated effort (and even then, it was pretty much a first since it was declared genocides are not OK).