Is Autocracy better than Democracy in Dealing with Domestic Economic Crises

The title is not as mischievous as it may first imply especially given sweeping
powers western democracies have had to give themselves in order to deal with the
credit crunch. As unrest among dissatisfied workers spreads in Russia there will be increasing interest in how such uprisings are quelled. Take the UK for example we have a case where the import of 300 Italian and Portuguese workers has sparked off
wild cat strikes across the country. Autocracies can nip what starts off as dissent and turns to panic in the bud. Their control of the media both in Russia and China is also very important for as we all know confidence is one of the key factors in getting people to start spending. Another potential bonus is you don't have to deal with nasty opposition parties
that may scupper bailouts that are economically sound but are politically very unpopular. The lack of accountability means that the foreign currency reserves Russia built up during the high oil price months may be dipped into for stimulus packages here and there. Essentially this is a political extension of the old Monopoly versus free competition argument found in most economic textbooks. The
conclusions are probably the same. It is wrong to assume that free competition and democracy is better in every instance but in the long term the efficiencies they yield must be the aspiration for economic and political systems.