Anyone who studies any form of gov. that depends on a popular democracy, knows it isn't possible for such a system to be competitively functional with more streamlined gov. management systems. No populace has the collective expertise to select truly qualified leaders and one way or another - democracies turn into popularity contests incapable of selecting qualified leadership. However, history has shown that unless the populace thinks they have some input into their governing, no authoritarian gov. lasts very long regardless of it's enforcement strength.
The solution is rather obvious. You have a fake "democracy" where the populace at best gets to make inconsequential decisions like electing by popular vote a "face" that can be loved or hated, but who has zero real input in the management of the nation, while the real management of the nation is in the best case left up to best and brightest professional and qualified managers.
Whether this arrangement is designed intentionally or not, it evolves to this popular leader "face" strategy out of functional necessity. It's most obvious in the royal family of Britain where the royals are functionless as strategic heads of state. In the US it's intentionally far more deceptive where our fake "democracy's" popularity contest generally elects the best smile, while the nations real leadership is totally out of sight to the public. In the US, the fake "democratic" process has become an industry unto itself encompassing billions of dollars of political theater supported popular entertainment media and advertising - actual professional journalism having died a quiet death decades ago.