Tough dilemma...but that makes it a good one.
Let's see...
The democracy is run by politicians that have over generations honed the art of elections to the point that it's just a popularity contest, with the actual issues themselves being little more then flavortext on playing cards in a game. They will tell you exactly what you need to hear to keep voting them in, and any mistake or inconvenient detail will be hidden and excused and lied about. The citizens mean nothing to them so the politicians fuel their lives of excess and debauchery knowing the citizens aren't aware that the politicians are responsible for the countries problems.
Politicians do what politicians do. But I can't get around that this is a caricature, the worst kind of perception of a badly organized democracy.
The thing of a democracy is that the people decide. The USA, like most current "democracies" isn't really one (it's a
represented democracy), but even so: it really isn't the best example here. Not just because of the electoral college or the "winner takes all" mentality but mostly because of the insane amount of money it costs to actually run for president.
The result is that in many countries, the whole idea of democracy is pretty hollow at the least. In the US and UK, it sounds to me like it only consists of chosing the lesser evil every so many years and then be held responsible for "your" choice to lie on everything. Not a pretty thing to look forward to...
The dictatorship is run by a single individual and his advisers, who have spent their entire lifetime learning macroeconomics and generally anything that's needed to run a country. Because if his (or her) permanent position he can make strategies that take in account their effects to the future of the country, and has prepared a few successor candidates to take his place when he passes. He can afford to be frank with the citizens about what is happening in the country that is affecting them, as they aren't in a position to fight him - unless almost the entire country unites to throw him out.
This is the opposite. The pipe dream of "just wait until
I rule the world!
".
I'm not as opposed as some based on the name (hint: Julius Caesar was a dictator), but it all sounds like either naive daydreaming or propaganda. I can't name a single current dictator-led country that isn't corrupt as hell, and that is because I honestly believe that power corrupts, and total power corrupts totally.
And why shouldn't it? I'm no history professor, but back in the old days, countries were more self reliant on everything. Nowaday dictatorship countries have needs that require trade with other countries, which in turn sets agreements on laws and standards. That all makes it hard to track, so I'm sure those "advisors" will become captains of industry pretty fast. And from there, the perception of the population as more than assets fades away.
So...after all this analysing, I'll pick...
Lousy democracy. Because I'm more optimistic than believing politicians are all rotten apples. In fact, I think I'm living in one that's pretty "okay" ish in that aspect. Not that we're free of issues(1), but without a 2-party system or a "winner takes all" system, things are already more in the area of an ACTUAL democracy than the representative equivalent.
(1): as an example...my sister-in-law had a legal council thing (or was it psychology? I forgot). At one point she had patient X in a session. The situation was partially subsidized by our health system.
But...X is the mother of a fairly well known politician. Said politician contacted my sister-in-law and demanded the treatment to be changed so it was fully subsidized. Sister-in-law refused, knowing better than politician that it would be illegal.
Politician's response was to threaten to have sister-in-law fired. She didn't respond to those threats and nothing came of it, but...let's just say none of us give our vote to her party.
