Devil's advocate..

[Angrboda]

Genkaus introduced that third criteria as something he thought I was implying, from which he tried to argue that it could serve as a wedge to differentiate between better and worse political systems. I don't accept that as a necessary metric.

I read the same thing. I didn't see him call it a necessary metric, just one that your comments would imply - one that would appear to be amenable to you. Try the inversion (of multiple parts), would a government that acted in the absence of any clear method of determining something be better, to you? A government that did not act in the presence of a method of making clear determinations?

The opinion you expressed seemed to be important to you when considering the matter at hand, would it not also be important to any government amenable to you considering the same subject?

I think you've gone off the rails. I made no such implication. The rest is obiter dictum about genkaus' reasoning based on the assumption that I had. I think his point, if he would ever get to it is that western political systems impose less on their citizens than Sharia based theocracies, thus western based systems are better. That I can't agree with for the reasons stated. The OP introduced the question, I believe, to be which system is more morally right than the other, though there is some ambiguity in his phrasing. To which I would submit I haven't seen a well reasoned argument to indicate that one is more morally right than the other. Genkaus took an earlier stab at it which I demurred to opine upon.