I think my usage of the words "good" and "bad" causes confusion. Instead of "good" please read "efficient" and instead of bad - "inefficient".

An efficient political system is one where the people under its rule are, in general, satisfied with the way it works and this situation is sustainable for the forseeable future.

When saying that Israelis "deserve" an efficient political system I mean that they will eventually change the present system if they are not satisifed with it. The french revolution is an extreme example of a change in a political system.

I don't care what are the goals of individual politicians. I care about the structure of the political system as a whole. A well-structured political system should force a politician to do lots of good things for the public if he (or she) wants to rise to power.

An exmaple for a system that doesn't have this property is a monarchy. A prince who heirs his father rises to power without having to do anything for the benefit of the public. This can work well when the masses have very little understanding of public affairs.

For more educated nations, democracy is a more efficient system because power depends on the approval of the people. But the people can still be partially manipluated by ideology, as you mention.

As people get wiser (and postmodernist), they start seeing beyond ideologies. This would probably lead to a change of the political system - but I will leave my speculations for later...

I hope you will stop ascribing to me any moral arguments. All I am saying is that if people judge their political system to be inefficient, they will aspire to reform it. One exmaple is the law for direct election of the prime minister - a recent change in the Israeli political system. These changes happen all the time, because people compare their country to other countries and try to draw conclusions. If enough people can benefit from a change, it may actually happen.

Of course politicians make mistakes. They often act against their own interest by ignoring crucial elements of the situation. After all, they are only human. Particles, on the other hand, don't have any interests, so they cannot be wrong.

And to end with a question: If we take the "rational politician" point of view, is democracy superior to monarchy? If all politicians will choose the same action, given the same information and the same national goals - what's the use of having an opposition?