Democracy is the best political system of govt - True or False

The West have been telling the rest of the world that democracy is the best political system that promotes development, innovation, creativity etc etc leading to a rich economy, a prosperous and happy population. Is this true or false? Is this just a belief or is this an objective statement supportable by facts and figures?  If this is just a belief, then there is no need to argue about it, no need to prove whether it is true or false. As long as one is happy about it, that is enough.  Even the Christians would go all out to prove that Christianity is not just a belief but can be proven to be true with facts and figures, or testimonies.

Let's assume that the above is an objective statement and can be proven with facts and figures, with realities. Take the two biggest Asian economies as the basis for this exercise. I will come to the western economies later. India and China are two shining examples of success and failure, of innovation and creativity, of a vibrant economy, a happy and rich population, or otherwise. In many ways the two are the extreme opposite of each other. One is extremely successful economically, with plenty of creativity and innovative inventions, products and services. The other so so. One is a huge and expanding economy that brings growth and prosperity to its people, making its people happy and free. The other?

The western model for democracy is equated with all the good stuff, freedom, wealth, economic growth and a happy people. Which of the two countries fits this model of democracy? Which is not?

By all data, especially hard economic data, China is the successful model. So China must be a democracy. India falls behind in almost everything except calling itself the biggest democracy in the world. Judging from the growing prosperity or poverty of the two countries, one cannot but conclude that China is a democracy and represents all the good things about democracy. 

Another way of looking at the results of the two countries is that democracy is not only unprogressive, stifles economic growth and prosperity, it also does not bring about a creative and innovative society that it was supposed to do so. Democracy does not bring about strong economic growth to a country.

The believers that democracy is all goodness would argue that both are bad examples,  or both are bad exceptions of what democracy is or is not. Look at all the European countries, all democratic and all so successful right. Yes and no. The richness of European countries were not due to democracy but wars, invasion, colonialism, looting and exploitation of the wealth of their colonies. Democracy only came about after they became rich. Their richness did not come about because of democracy. In fact if you look around the world, all the emerging countries after independence did not fair well if they are so called democratic countries. The few exceptions that claimed to be democracies and were successful were actually authoritarian states. They started not in the real sense of being democratic but becomes more democratic after they were successful, while some continue to be authoritarian with a fake facade of a democracy.

The European and American democracies are falling apart gradually and many are bankrupt countries today without the spoils from their colonies. The biggest and supposedly successful democracy, the USA, is actually a bankrupt country but struggling to survive economically, and with a pretentious prosperous economy held together by military might, dollar hegemony and a mountain of debt. It is in fact a bad example of a rich and successful democracy. It is an empire, an authoritarian regime exploiting the rest of the world with its military might, not with democratic practices. Without the military might and dollar hegemony, it would fail miserably as a state, at best it would be a poor democratic state.

What do you think?