Should poorer countries embrace democracy?

The Arab Spring was intended as a harbinger for democratization. While it has succeeded and brought democracy to some countries, governance in others have remained the same. Amongst the countries involved in the Arab Spring, there are poorer countries like Syria, Tunisia and Libya. Thus, given the international spotlight that these countries were under, it is critical for us to know if democracy is an ideology that should be embraced by poorer countries. I feel that poorer countries should embrace democracy except if they are confident that their leaders are upright and will always place the interest of the country before anything else. This is because democratisation helps to ensure that the government is competent and accountable. At the same time, democratisation will also help to provide greater social welfare to its people.
Democracy encompasses the idea of choosing the government through free and fair elections and equality of rights and privileges for all. I feel that if a poor country's leader is upright and places the interest of the country before anything else, it is not critical for the country to embrace democracy. For example, Chiang Kai Shek and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in Taiwan and Singapore respectively have adopted an authoritarian approach which have successfully led to the development and prosperity of these countries. In such cases, the leaders are upright and citizens do not have to worry about the government misusing funds or pursuing activities that do not help to improve the economic and social welfare of its citizens. It is thus not critical for poorer countries with competent leaders to embrace democracy.
It is argued that poorer countries should not embrace democracy as a democracy will only work if there exists an educated populace. However, illiteracy rates in poorer countries are high and this means that the citizens in poorer countries may not be well-informed enough to be entrusted the responsibility to make sound choices and