I agree that a good government doesn't necessarily have to be democratic.
But personally I'd rather favor a real democracy - because the systems we usually call "democracy" are hardly democratic at all in my opinion.
In my country for example (and I'm sure the situation is very similar in almost all democratic countries), the voter's influence is pretty much limited to deciding between pest and cholera every four years - with "pest" and "cholera" referring to the two big political parties that actually have any chance of winning. And while some decades ago these two parties were considered to have at least a slightly different agenda, nowadays it's almost impossible to even distinguish between both parties.
In my opinion, a great first step to improving democracy would be to get rid of political parties and directly vote the people we trust. Political parties always have a tendency of trying to bring their members into line: If one of the two big parties makes a proposition, almost all members of this party will vote in favor, while almost all members of the other big party will vote against. I just don't believe that this strange coincidence would happen if these people could vote really freely, instead of being expected to be loyal to their own party.
The number of parliament members could also be drastically reduced. A nice side-effect would be saving money, but much more important would be that it would be easier for the voters to understand the actual people's involvement in the decision making process. In current democracies, it's usually very hard to figure out which persons are actually responsible for both good and bad decisions - so instead, people say that "party X" is responsible for this or that, even though parties are just abstract concepts and everyone's aware that these good or bad decisions were actually made by real persons that you are usually not really aware of.
In our modern computerized society, we could even go much more democratic, where the voters really decide on the actual propositions. In such a scenario, it would probably make sense to step away from the "one man one vote" approach, but that's not necessarily a bad idea.
