Are you really suggesting that we have oversight and people being held responsible? Not in the Netherlands in any case, where did you think this was happening?
> At least in democracies things require oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
I'm scratching my head at this one. Why do you think they are doing those things if not because they are constantly re-evaluating their direction? If you're just going to keep doing the same thing over and over again there isn't much need for debate. The oversight and accountability mechanisms are all-weather good ideas, but typically the US is using them to constantly adjust and change policy responses.
Compare that to somewhere more authoritarian where they can't change policies precisely because those 3 aspects are quite weak. They find their groove once and stick to it for decades, and anyone trying to shake things up gets mired in institutional inertia. Sure a supreme leader could force sudden change in theory, but why are they going to do that? He's got everything set up how he likes it and his view of the world fossilised maybe 10, 20 years ago.
Democracies are absolute monsters. The moment they detect that their interests have changed they'll vote out the old mob, bring in a new one and do things differently. The US went Obama to Trump in one election cycle, which was probably a shock for anyone trying to negotiate with them.
Your description of democracy doesn't match with existing capitalism. In capitalism, what matters is the individual capitalist desire to achieve profits. The economic decisions are made by a few oligarchs on top, not by the population.
are they really though? At least in democracies things require oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
It's exactly authoritarian regimes that can turn on a dime, if the supreme leader feels like it.