Today for example we have a situation where the government of Argentina claims to represent the victims of historic state oppression in Argentina but supports state oppression today in its ally Venezuela, who in turn condemns its own dictatorships that came before it. Just different groups doing the oppressing in slightly different ways calling themselves different things to make themselves and their friends richer at the expense of their people
Of course, why go through all that trouble to take power if you don't gain a material benefit over your peers?
Democracy is virtually always fake, certainly the current systems claiming to be so are. They are in fact oligarchies.
This commenter Ries says some interesting things and means well but his mindset is from the last century -- the 1900s! Reminds me of my parents in the 80s. LOL
That leaves us with autocracy vs oligarchy. Of course there are no pure autocracies (Louis XIV?) so we're talking about a spectrum. IMO the advantages of autocracy generally outweighs the drawbacks, especially in the long term (e.g. 50+ years) and especially when compared to an oligarchy fraudulently posing as a democracy!
When social attitudes change like this, it signals there is less tolerance towards corruption in general including in politics and business.
I assume your objective is to increase per capita wealth. Is this correct? Corruption is only *weakly* correlated with per capita wealth when you factor out confounding variables. Anyhow, if you're hoping for changes in attitudes towards corruption, you have some problems:
1) the attitudes you describe are significantly affected by genes.
2) your entire culture will change as well (e.g. les joie de vivre).
3) you can't just wish it but have to set certain incentives, as in reproductive ones!
But before proposing solutions, it would be nice to specify exactly what the problem is. If it's lack of per capita income/wealth, then how much would satisfy you?
