Democracy rules?

Fidel Castro announced his resignation as Cuban President today and Bush, expectedly, scrambled to suggest a fresh start with a Castro-free Cuba. For starters, the well heeled in Miami will have cheaper Cuban cigars after surviving on those smuggled in. Castro vowed to stay alive to see Bush leave the office. It reminds me of Deng Xiaoping, who struggled at his deathbed to see Hong Kong reverted to China's rule after a 99-year lease to Britain. He died a few months short of the handover ceremony. Bush, on the other hand, will retire as the President in November and Castro is hanging on tight.

I'm curious though. Is the democracy known to US beneficial to all? Would Cuba have flourished if Castro was not in the picture? Or would it end up being just another fledging nation plagued with poverty under a corrupt government? I've heard of Castro being dictatorial but no one has yet accused him of being corrupt.

In Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto's party has trounced President Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League-Q. Bhutto would have her third shot as the head of the country if not for the unfortunate assination. Now that the 'tyrant' is going to be removed for sure, would Pakistan thrive in the name of democracy? Or will there be a power struggle within the coaliation of previously opposing political parties?

What do you think?