I would argue that a major flaw of democracy or any multiparty system is that there rarely if ever is any underlying ideological foundation for what the parties are doing, rather there are multiple ideologies that are brought to the table constantly, and in the end the govorment represents literally nothing like toothlessjay said.
In order for a republic or democracy to work everyone must participate with the same underlying ideological foundation and work from there, say if nationalisms "The good of the nation, the people" is the underlying foundation then all decisions made nad all platforms proposed operate under the same goal, the same relative direction, even if the ideas or methods by which to get to that goal differ. As such the govorment then represents something, and that would be striving for the good of the poeple and generally their will. The issue then arises on how to maintain this ideologicla foundation, make sur eit doesnt slip from the public mind and dissapear into some nether realm where it waits silently for someone to dig it up and clean it of the cobwebs of history.
However authoritarianism is not an irrational position and may be required at times to rip a country from crisis with decicive and focused action which is the major benefit of authoritarianism. A military is hardly a democracy, at best it could be an oligarchy of advocates to a head ruler. However the military needs ot be decisive and as such, for example in times of strife, the people could elect a temporary dictator until stability is returned and a vote is cast to maintain the dictator or remove him from office.
