Decisiveness and democracy

In many articles, I found many writers comparing China's decisiveness with India's wavering stance and laying the blame on India's democracy. Democracy was, according to them, based on consensus and hence necessary dilly-dallying. However, history shows the reverse to be correct. A democratic leader knows the opinions of the people- he knows roughly how many people support a venture and how many oppose it. An authoritarian government does not know the opinion of the people. As no one dares to defy it openly, they do not know what the people actually think. So while a democratic leader can be decisive,an autocrat will dilly-dally.

History proves this conjecture. Stalin had ample proof that Hitler was massing troops for an assault but he took no action as he was not sure of the loyalty of his soldiers and people. While US and UK started preparations for total war in 1942, Nazi Germany did not adopt the stance as Hitler was unsure of the support of German citizens.Only when defeat was staring at Germany in 1944, did Hitler call for "total war". Germany did manage to double its aircraft and tank production in 1944 but by then it was too late. Nearer to our time, are the governments of US and Israel not decisive? Are they not democratic? The dilly-dallying of Indian Government is not due to democracy but due to the absence of a national culture and national objectives.