My notions are generally radical -- that is, they start from root assumptions. The root assumptions of socialism and Confucianism are that man is fundamentally good. I don't think so. Buddhism's fundamental assumption is that life is suffering. I don't think so. Christianity's fundamental assumption is that man is sinful and doomed. I don't think so.
Democracy's assumption is that the public is able to make satisfactory decisions about the conduct of the state. I don't think so. Average people are neither well enough informed nor smart enough to do so. Aristocrats, monarchs, and oligarchs are generally morally unfit to rule. So between the incompetence of the one and the selfishness of the other, there is no good system of government.
Plato's notion of a philosopher king is such nonsense that only a philosopher could come up with it. Aristotle's notion that the propertied and educated should rule seems appealing. But then again is it a coincidence that I just happen to be propertied and educated? And so is pretty much everyone who agrees with Aristotle? Or that Plato just happened to be a philosopher?
I am not kidding when I say I take a dim view of people, and not just of other people. :o)