What really is the rational thing to do?

It is an American assumption that, given the choice, any rational person would choose democracy over any other form of government. So what is rational, anyway? A few of the articles we read for the last few lectures pointed out that several government officials believe that religious extremists lack reason, for example. This seems to be an idea left over from the Enlightenment. Religion is just as reasonable a motivation as nationhood in many senses. The dedication to the protection of an artificial definition of territory made up of an ethnically heterogeneous population and that includes territories separated by oceans may seem a bit strange and unreasonable, too. I have heard arguments that religion is man-made, and therefore, fanatic dedication to a religious cause is silly. But if this is true, it still doesn’t give any more concreteness to the idea of a nation. If both are manmade, as some insist, why is the nation more rational than religion?
But I’ve digressed. I want to discuss the apparent inherent rationality of democracy. It is assumed that any government that isn’t one is oppressive in the American popular view. The literature on nation-building we read addressed problems of building democracies, but they never seemed to challenge the idea that a democracy is desirable in every society. Sometimes, in my view, democracy just can’t work. Some societies neither want nor function under democracy. I recall reading an article in Smithsonian magazine about post-Cold War Russia and, at the time, was surprised to find that the Russians interviewed lamented the transition to democracy and preferred a more authoritarian government. These were not people who had benefitted particularly from the USSR, but ordinary people. In Russia’s case, this seems to make sense- it is an enormous country that covers landscapes difficult to traverse. This kind of place might need a stronger government that can’t depend on the people to govern efficiently. Democracy in fact seems to be fading in Russia these days when at one point it seemed to be improving. Maybe this gives us a glance at what is actually needed or accepted as a government in this society.
The New York Times published an article on Monday that reported that many in Bhutan prefer to maintain the autocratic government in place rather than transition to democracy as the current government plans. In this case, it is those in power who urge democracy, not the average citizens. In fact, the government must use a lot of persuasion for popular support for democracy to catch. Of course, one could argue that it’s fear of changing the status quo that makes people reluctant to embrace democracy. But this doesn’t explain why populations often keep away from democracy even when their governments are in transition anyway. The United States and United Nations has to take into consideration that different populations have different values that may be incompatible to begin with. Therefore, imposing democracy is destined to fail in many situations. Maybe before we study the inputs and outputs of nation-building and the nuances of success we should find what makes a democracy tenable in the first place. Democracy may not always be the rational option.