Deciphering the Political Trinity

When Aristotle wrote in his book "Politics" that there are three types of good government- Royalty, Aristocracy and Constitutional Government and three bad-the perverted forms of the aforementioned governments where royalty slips into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy and constitutional government into democracy. It was Machiavelli writing nearly two millenia later, reinstated this in his discourses. Furthermore he added, that the ideal government was a combination of the three good forms of government-monarchy, aristocracy and democracy ( in Machiavellian terms- 'democracy' refers to constitutional government). When governments are ranked according to their longevity, the ones who rule the apex are those, Machiavelli concluded, a healthy combination of the three governments. From Sparta to Rome in the ancient times to the United States today, the strongest countries never mind strong democracies, the greatest powers had a fair mix of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy in them. It is a fair conclusion then to make that, any future government must have all aforementioned  forms of government to sustain itself and thrive. But a deeper understanding or even a slight thought to it will reveal that the three forms of government have only small differences which can be bridged. A government created by this form will be stronger than the one that blindly adopts the the three governments. No country that has hitherto existed has had such a government. Even Rome had and United States has what is but a superficial culmination of the three forms of government. In essence, monarchy  just refers to one ruler and isn't necessarily hereditary. So the American Presidency would qualify amply as monarchical. Aristocracy is many rulers-by definition wise men who are educated in public affairs and that of administration whilst a constitutional government is a representative body duly elected by the people of the state. The advantage of a monarchy is stability. An individual is less likely to argue and fight with himself than a body politic and so important matters are not deferred by democratic tradition. An aristocracy puts merit over popularity and hence allows talented men to rule the country as opposed to just popular men. This prevents as Jefferson put it "mobocracy of the cruelest nature". It also protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority which being more populous than nobility or kingship can cause greater harm and injustice. Democracy as we so popularly know in today's age, has its own advantages of responsibility and protection against dissolution into authoritarian rule. In an educated society where the electorate is sufficiently literate not just in linguistics and sciences but also in civics and public life, the people will elect only men whom it feels will be best suited to serve the state. By this virtue, they will elect as it may seem to them, one man, a group of men or a constitutional body that is capable of administration. Monarchy will not be absolute, as men to this high power are chosen by an informed body which when it finds it appropriate may remove him. An aristocracy too will descend into a group of over-nourished lazy men because one, the country is educated and two because these men are themselves from the public elevated to their current positions by their virtue and intelligence, will try to protect themselves from vices of greed and ignorance which will disqualify them to their jobs. A constitutional government to in the same manner will be a responsible body and it will also be stable because the people who elect them are aware of the ills of excessive responsibility that nurtures uncertainty and will accordingly empower a particular group or one man or the entire body politic in such manner that it may carry on its duties without the fear of sudden absolution.