Simple question.
In a society without grammatical redundancies.
Both of those choices look like contradictions in terms to me.
Oligarchic Democracy: Theoretically everyone’s equal and everyone has rights roughly equivalent to that of a new democracy but virtually everyone in power is the top 1,000 families or something like that.
Meritocratic Dictatorship: Not an insane dictatorship but a “rational” one based on efficiency and utilitarianism. Criticism of government is allowed and everyone is treated equally regardless of birth or wealth.
No “huh?” option? I abstain, then.
I know what they mean. They are still contradictions in terms. An oligarchy can’t be a true democracy and a dictatorship can’t be a true meitocracy.
Is the second one the same thing as a benevolent dictatorship?
Heh. I thought the thread title was a palindrome at first. 
Given the two real-life examples cited, I think A is preferable. I actually live in a country that’s pretty much A. I don’t think I would like B at all.
If these two are examples, then A offers far more personal freedom.
For the former adding “pseudo-” to "democracy is all that’s needed; there’s plenty of fake democracies with rigged or outright faked elections, after all.
As for the other, I don’t think that “meritocratic dictatorship” is actually a “contradiction in terms”, but only in practice. In theory one could have some enlightened absolute ruler who would promote according to merit even to the point of stepping aside if a more worthy leader was found; but in reality that’s not what you get. It’s one of those theoretical governments that would work just fine if you could just find morally flawless superhumans to staff it.
As for the real world versions, it depends. Neither corrupt “democracies” nor dictatorships are all created equal.
Banana Republicans?
Allow me to be the first to say…
Band name!
Whichever offered me the most personal freedom and voice in the government.
In this ever-changing world in which we live in, I’d much prefer a benevolent constitutional monarchy. Sometimes I wished we had that United States. Cuz people besides me is dumb.
Actually, I think Fahreed Zakaria makes a really good case for the limitations of democracy in The Future of Freedom
Ah, but a Banana Republic isn’t just an oligarchic democracy. It’s one where one or more corporations (in the original banana republics, Chiquita Banana), which isn’t/aren’t even owned by local oligarchs, tells the government what to do.
Which actually sounds a lot like every so-called democracy in the world; some simply happen to be more discreet than others.
Ah yes, the United Fruit Company.
It sounds like in the dictatorship, at least I’d have a better chance of clawing my way to the top, by clubbing the right heads or doing well in The Party. The Oligarchy sounds like they’d want to keep their power “in the family,” no matter what.
Maybe the question really comes down to guillotining. Do I want the chance to run the guillotine when the government collapses, or run the guillotine on behalf of the government, in hopes of rising up the ranks to become dictator myself? 
Meritocratic dictatorship. I don’t care about the cultural trappings of equal opportunity, I want the fact of it.
Why not? A dictator has to have a government and there’s nothing saying he can assign people to jobs in his government based on their abilities.
I don’t know how to answer this. In a way, both choices are dictatorships.
I opened this thread to point out same.
“In which society would you prefer to live?”
“Which society would you prefer to live in?”