Some anarchists wonder why people continue to defend democracy despite its putatively bad results. Even assuming that people objectively judge the desirability of the outcome of independent political actions, unless you support a specific alternative form of governance there’s still no reason to abandon democracy. If you think democracy is better than any other political system you can think of, then adopting democracy carries the lowest costs.
For this to be possible, you don’t even have to believe that the democracy is the best out of all future systems, just out of all systems currently conceivably implementable. If I think a state is needed to correct for market failures, then anarchy is out of the question. If your the average person, you probably aren’t going to be very sympathetic towards fascism, monarchism, et cetera. One day there may develop another, better form of governance, and the institutions for it will be in place, but these things have to come into existence first (so one might think, at least). Immediately abandoning democracy for the theoretical possibility of something better doesn’t seem like much of a choice.
I agree that someone interested in the topic and scholarly enough to be self-critical ought to find merit in alternative systems, such as anarchism. But, I only think this because I myself find merit in anarchism. The superiority of alternatives is not at all obvious — in fact, I think that democracy, right now, is the best form of governance we have (that’s not to say that piecemeal improvements can’t be made). Democracies may have its faults, but as of now it’s the system with the least costly faults. It can make sense to defend it on these grounds.