Dictatorship	Democracy
Election of Government	No	Yes
Degree of public opinion influence upon the State decision-making process	Moderate. State has to be careful in order not to overrun a limit of people’s patience with coercion monopoly. If State does not overrun it - the State is safe, if it does – social upheavals or social unrest might bring non-desirable for the State consequences	Higher than under dictatorship, however, the State mainly has to see that it does not cross a minimal amount of welfare and social payments. If this limit is intact, little consequences might be faced. Strong State supporter in this sense is a natural GDP growth. With growth in place the State may even increase welfare measures from time to time.
People’s participation in political process	Social upheavals and unrest	Higher than under dictatorship since people can at least express their opinions freely. However, the State has merely to see that it buys people adequately with social welfare and social benefits. If this is intact, nothing threatens the State. Strong State supporter in this sense is a natural GDP growth. With growth in place, the State may even increase welfare measures from time to time.
Governing groups	Dictator or state aristocracy (narrow part of the top-level state bureaucracy) sometimes together with the other powerful social groups	Representatives and top-level state bureaucracy
People’s participation in State property management	Zero. All State revenues, entire State property and mechanisms of coercion are uncontrollably managed by the dictator, whoever he is	Very limited if any. Except for election of the governance people rarely if at all have any influence upon decision-making related to the State property management. Even more than that - generally people have very limited interest in such management (being busy managing their own property) unlike in income redistribution through the State.
People’s participation in income redistribution and income appropriation through the State	Zero. All revenues received by the State are distributed under the one hundred percent control on behalf of dictator.	Major people’s interest in the State is reduced to income redistribution in social and welfare purposes. There are also certain special interests in income redistribution for particular business promotion and protection purposes
Real proprietors of the State property	Dictator or state aristocracy (narrow part of the top-level state bureaucracy). Unlimited private property rights of dictator up to a general possibility to alienate State property and even State territories and to appropriate the proceeds.	Representatives and top-level State bureaucracy (including legislative and judiciary branches, which are the intrinsic elements of the entire State machine and therefore also of the State bureaucracy and first of all in terms of their material interests coming from their principal source of income)

Let us also exhibit a rough cost-benefit analysis of the State under dictatorship and under democracy.

	Dictatorship	Democracy
State Revenues	Mainly taxes, but role of non-tax revenues is much higher than under democracy    Main beneficiaries – the State and social groups in power	Taxes and charges for particular State services     Main beneficiaries – the State
Costs	Coercive enforcement of dictatorship (army, police, security forces etc.), comprehensive propaganda (moralistic and psychological, logic and image-type), limited welfare  Main beneficiaries – mainly forces of coercion and persuasion, other people to a rather limited degree (scarce social benefits)	Huge social benefits, other types of income redistribution, limited propaganda     Main beneficiaries – people as social welfare beneficiaries represent major cost for the State. To certain degree also benefit special interest groups and lobbying organizations as well as associated with them interests
Profits	Everything left after the costs – State income and State property, which in real terms belong (and distributed) either to dictator or in the best case to a narrow group of his associates                         Main beneficiaries – dictator, sometimes together with a negligible number of associates	Financial and non-financial benefits of the top-level State bureaucracy (salaries and other monetary bonuses related to performance of State functions; office related benefits such as traveling and transportation, office premises, dining and wining, social events; huge employment possibilities for friends and relatives; opportunities for promotion of affiliated political parties and organizations; political, social and economic influence including contracting influence and bargaining power; after-the-office benefits; personal affirmation, pride, self-esteem etc.; information transferable in financial benefits, for example on the stock market and so on and on)   Main beneficiaries – top-level State bureaucracy (representatives)

Now let us formulate why we are having the outcomes presented in tables above, why precisely democracy is not enough for complete realization of societal justice and what exactly is not allowing a one hundred percent correspondence between interests of the State and those of the people even under the most perfect democracy.

First of all, very few people at any point in time are associating their vital or primary material (financial) interests with management of the state property or with the State generally. So far significant share of people’s income is coming from sources outside of the State. In these circumstances people simply care much less about politics and management of the State, which is just another type of entrepreneurial activity (from the point of view of top-level State bureaucracy the State is merely a conventional commercial enterprise serving to extract money from the people for their own personal consumption) - as far as the State is providing them or rather is allowing them to provide themselves with a certain living minimum (up to understanding of such minimum in particular society). Other things equal, people whose primary financial interests are not connected with social benefits and welfare payments are rather inclined not to share (or share as little as possible) their income with the State and not to supply the State with any kind of property than to participate in whatever State property management. They are rather managing their own property in such a way that it would not be appropriated by the State. In these circumstances people might be willing to interfere in State management or to protest against the State as such and against governance system as a whole only if something is noticeably exceptionally wrong in which case quite often it is too late to protest. It is never too late to protest against low salaries in education, but it easily might be too late to protest against escalating State domination in society. At certain point in time, when people wake up, it might turn out to be irreversible.

Second. Top level State bureaucracy being socially the strongest social group managing mechanisms of power and coercion as well as one of the most active and most wise groups in society (one have to be smart enough in order to get into significantly closed power circles) will not allow people to participate in State property management and primarily in appropriation of exclusive income from the State that easily. From the point of view of top-level State bureaucracy the way to go is to throw people a bone of welfare benefits and to appropriate huge state profits (revenues, income, etc.) in one small happy family.

Third. Somebody might complain that together with rising social welfare more and more people are increasingly relying upon social benefits and therefore are more and more interested in State revenues, if not in the State property management. That is mostly correct. This is precisely how social parasitism or unlimited income redistributions under democracy, in the long run are leading people to dictatorship – the way exploited by Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler and the way earlier contributed to a destruction of ancient Rome. Not only the interests of the people and of the State are quite distanced, but also interests of different people towards the State property are different. Some people are eager to acquire as much benefits from the State as possible, while the others hate to share their earnings with the State. Those two categories are having hard times to find mutual satisfaction – in the best case they are getting just a short-term equilibrium. Such statement of things is far from being contributor to people’s counteraction of the State. Rather, vice a versa, it divides people and helps the State to fool, to enslave them and to extort their money. It would be much better if people will not have any interest in State property, than if they have it all and are lead by this interest to a permanent escalation of the State domination in society.

Democracy is having two fundamental advantages comparatively with any form of dictatorship. First of all, democracy is allowing a higher degree of realization of personal freedom. But it is only personal freedom what has all the intrinsic value, while democracy per se is just a tool. Second, democracy usually is more efficient than dictatorship as a governance system. But as a governance system it is certainly not a "rule of the people, by the people and for the people". Much rather it is a rule of the top-level State bureaucracy by the top-level State bureaucracy and for the top-level State bureaucracy.

At the same time democracy is having one very important inherent problem - unlimited or rather permanently escalating income redistribution based on “one man – one vote” and on corresponding possibility for a large majority benefit on account of small minority. Income redistribution, nature of state proprietorship and difference of people's interests towards the State are the three main reasons why democracy is not enough for elimination of all imperfections in the system of social and property relations or for elimination of exclusive property rights based on mechanisms of power and coercion. Without economic, social and political benchmarking even the most perfect democracy would and always did throughout human history degenerate in dictatorship. Coercive monopoly on particular territory or on particular area of residence even under the most perfect democracy cannot eliminate societal injustice as well as based on exclusive social and property rights imperfections in societal system. While the State and people associated with the State will always have a possibility to appropriate incomes, which economic value cannot be estimated in open market competition or, what is the same, being based exclusively on power and coercion cannot be estimated at all.

At the end of the day we are bound to ask - is there anything that can eliminate any type of societal injustice and any imperfections in societal system or they are immanent for human society? For now, based on our current societal knowledge, we can say that there is a singular operational condition for elimination or at least for a substantial diminishing of imperfections in societal structure – an open competition between States and societal systems – competition, which once already have destroyed the most inefficient and the most unjust societal system ever – communism. There are, however, at least two fundamental problems, which are limiting functionality of this condition.

1. Operational condition is working with a significant time lag, even though together with economic development and social evolution this time lag is permanently diminishing. Existence of the time lag is based upon a presence in any society of artificial barriers for free production factors flows. Back in history when countries and nations were closed for outsiders and for an outside world, democracies being quite fragile social constructions (fragile mainly due to inherent income redistributions or to social parasitism constantly oriented towards dictatorship and state domination in society) almost always lead to dictatorships. With opening borders and globalization, social benchmarking and production factors’ flows are in permanent evolution and today it is rather difficult, though probably not entirely impossible, to establish dictatorship in one separately taken economically developed country.

2. Imperfect benchmarking, which originates in the fact that particular individuals in any society do not care directly about macroeconomic efficiency. What they care about are their interests or their own microeconomic efficiency. People might compare, benchmark and follow not only positive for macroeconomic efficiency and societal justice developments, but negative ones corresponding to their interests as well. There are no societal mechanisms or no social guarantees, whatsoever, that the most efficient and the fairest societal policy will be chosen. Furthermore, under the universal suffrage it is virtually impossible to follow any policy except for the socialist one.

Deep down inside, however, there is a single inherent fundamental cause of the problem with complete realization of societal justice. It stands in the fact that at our present level of societal knowledge it seems to be impossible to eliminate the State or governance monopoly on particular territory. At most we can weaken or suppress it. However, no matter how hard we try (while lately we are not trying at all) the State remains to be a social monopoly based on mechanisms of power and coercion, remains to possess exclusive social and property rights, remains to be a pure price maker (establishing a level of taxation or what is the same - a price of the State services), as any monopoly remains to be unjust and inefficient and because of all that remains to be a non-socialized institution.