Ok, I see where this is heading . Democracy versus Dictatorship debate has always been in vogue, and the reason for the continued existence of arguments in favor of the latter, proves that there is some merit to it as well. Although i like your style of composing your thoughts into words- I will nevertheless NOT beg to differ on the issue (pun intended) .
Ill work on the two main models you have chosen. The Hellenistic and Islamic.

I do not support unchecked rogue dictatorships for absolute power corrupts absolutely. However having studied the Islamic polity and various scholars' opinions in that respect, I have come to realize that the original Islamic system is the best possible means to attain excellence in governance. I know there’s been a lot of vandalism in Islamic political law by proponents of Western governance and many scholars have tried to equate the two, just to prove their point. It does not even vaguely resemble the popular concept of democracy. Having established my preference for the Islamic system, Ill simply state that God has ordained a constitution already for us- we cannot profess any legislation on our own and the one that we do, as is often necessary, has to coincide with God's principles. If by democracy we mean 'counselling' which is very much in tandem with our religion- then I agree to such a democracy. However if by counselling you mean including everyone in a state for decisions due- then it is here that I dont agree. All men are born equal, but their minds are not. Just like everyone in this state cannot be given legal custody of an infant sans a few, the state also cannot be given to whims of everyone because its just as delicate. Similarly all 17 million Pakistanis arent capable of becoming doctors either. The select few who are eligible for such a responsibility are those that are the greatest minds of the nation who have proven their metal. Islamic tradition points out to an electoral college comprising such men, who then elect nominees for the ruler and then select one of them. Since times have now changed and honesty and credibility a rare commodity- we can augment this practice so that the electoral college itself will be elected by a few thousand citizens of the state who are registered and even their histories known. This rules out the possibility of universal suffrage as is a tenet of modern democracy. Politics in Islamic history only started becoming awry once Caliphs usurped power and refused to abide by these Islamic principles.

Secondly the Hellenistic democracy. Primarily, we have to take into account the population of Athens at its peak which was 150,000 which was the most populous of all city-states. Of this number, slaves, women and foreigners were a big chunk while the male citizens comprised 1/3. It is common knowledge that only the citizens were allowed to take part in decisions. If we take the average of the above figure, we only arrive at approximately 50,000 Athenians eligible for decision-making. One of the reasons there was no concept of a ‘foreign naturalized citizen’ was also this fact. They wanted important men to be kept small and exclusive. Secondly, all of them were acclimatized with Acropolis politics much before democracy even made an appearance. Their favorite pastime was politics. Nearly all of them had completed a military draft that equipped them with a sound basis of citizenship as well as love for their city-state.At any time, at least 85% of their citizens were educated enough and understood even the complex requirements of governance. By the time they were done with their primary schooling, they had memorized and conceptualized Homer's political debacle. Hence we can conclude that the chances of erroneous legislation on their behalf was already minimal.
Thirdly, even when they did indulge in politics it wasnt with respect to electing their representatives for they knew too well that this path is vulnerable of corruption. Instead they were welcomed to vote for or against a legislation, a sort of a referendum at not all but some vital moments. Such referendums werent always succumbed to by the ruler or the Counselors however.
The Spartans practiced a much more complex and open system of democracy. In spite of that, one cannot forget how soon they came down as a nation despite their courage and strong military background.

Pakistan has none of the above traits and times, population and even the stakes have greatly magnified. So democracy, my friend, does not set us apart from these systems. Good leadership does. We dont have any. Western democracy was found only in the last 300 years by the public of downtrodden autocracies where religion was made redundant in practice but now used as a tool to cement the ruler’s throne. Where piety and honour was only visible in coat of arms but amiss from public dealings. Had democracy been a good basis for a state, the Ottomans would not have survived for 500 years out of which 300 were of prosperity and progress. Napoleon was a dictator, who has triggered ambivalent feelings amongst westerners for the same trait, yet nobody denies the leap in social, educational, legal and political fields, France took for the first time.

Lastly, God has made humans in his own image (Ibn-e-Arabi). If he has delegated some of his authority to his Vicegerent on earth, then like His orders, an honest ruler’s orders will not always suit us but in disguise, is best for us. Since God cannot be doubted but man carries that burden, there are always ways to create a system of checks and balances and in extreme cases, depose the ruler. Although Im not for a very myopic imposition of shariat, yet we should appreciate the good things about it and apply them.

“Kill em all” is a distorted version of the righteous “Kill the tyrants”. The latter becomes an abject necessity when nothing else seems probable. I will quote Che Guevara here, although I am not entirely sure of the wordings he used then, this is what it implied.

“When a nation is overshadowed by an imperial superpower, when its economic indicators operate at the behest of that power, when its media is controlled by that power, when state institutions are helpless in front of an unknown superior hand and when the masses will kill for a few pennies- know it then, that there is no other way to get out of this shadow other than a massive revolution.” So that answers your inhibitions regarding such a reality. The only major country not to ever undergo this process in its history is Great Britain. Any guesses where all this filth originally comes from? Pakistan cannot be an exception for long.

As for Imran Khan, all I am saying is, if we have given chances to scoundrels all this while (believe me people still revere BB and Nawaz sharif and Altaf Hussain and I really am awed by Pakistanis’ short memory spans), then he should definitely be given a chance by the powers here. But even I don’t see it happening in reality because I guess Khan still has some integrity remaining in him that forbids him to haggle with the hawks.