How did Nebuchadnezzar's rule differ from democratic rule?
Nebuchadnezzar ruled as a totalitarian despot, with decision-making centered in himself, unlike democracy, where many people participate in decisions. Democracy is cherished as a great form of government, but broad participation can make decisive action difficult. Nebuchadnezzar had no concern for his subjects, while democratic rule involves wider consensus.
Les explains that Nebuchadnezzar, like any other great dictator, was a despot and a totalitarian. He had no concern about his subjects, but his decision-making was within himself. By contrast, democracy involves many people in decision-making; it may be loved as the greatest form of government, but when it comes to getting something done, it is probably the worst. Les also points to Christ's future kingdom as a kingdom of one, with absolute power, no confabs, and no consensus.