The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways.
> And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.
I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that
> the few in that society who are educated...take charge
is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.
> Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.
The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.
In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools.
Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions.
I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?