What are the arguments which led you to believe, that all these alternatives are worse than democracy?
Why do you think, that "there is no country on earth currently, that has a 100% functioning democracy, mostly because the richest people always take over governments and rule"? Isn't it rather true, that these rich people rule through democracy by sponsoring politicians who promise to make a payback once they will be in power? Isn't it rather an essential problem of democracy, that average people have no idea about politics and so they usually vote for those who spent a lot of money on the election campaigns and are therefore "lauder" - but not necessarily "better" (however we are going to define this "betterness") than their opponents?
From what I wrote it does not follow that I don't think a society is unable to organize itself democratically. I only suggest, that it is not the best way to organize society, even if we would agree (just for the sake of this discussion) that there should be some form of government in existence.
I think that hereditary monarchy is generally more reasonable way of ruling a country. It is especially evident if we consider the notion known to economists as "time preference" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference ). The time preference of democratically appointed rulers is in most cases much higher than that of a monarch in a hereditary monarchy. Why is that so? Because in democracy, the current group of rulers know that even if some policy is "good" (setting aside the definition of "good") in a long run, it is not a valid argument for them to enact it, since their cadence lasts, let's say 5 years and the good effects of this choice may be observed just after their opponents came to power. On contrary, in a hereditary monarchy, the monarch knows that even if he is not going to see these benevolent effects of his politics, it is his son (or some other member of his dynasty) who is going to be the next ruler, therefore he has incentive to be as good of a ruler as he can - for the sake of wellness/prestige/popularity of his family.
More arguments against democracy and supporting monarchy/aristocracy are presented in this ingenious book by Hans Herman-Hoppe, which I recommend you to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy%3A_The_God_That_Failed
My arguments are human history, most oppressive monarchies have been destroyed by humans via revolution (some have been taken over peacefully), when the rich have too much power the poor kill them, because there are always more poor people than rich people, that has happened many times in many countries throughout human history.
When the rich take over a government it is no longer a democracy it becomes an oligarchy. The rich do not rule by democracy they destroy democracy and create an oligarchy (they may create an illusion of democracy but when laws/rules are created/destroyed that only benefit the wealthy minority that is not a democracy). The problem with political education is a symptom of oligarchies/monarchies, when the wealthy are in charge they do no adequately fund schools for the majority because an uneducated population is easier to control.
I do not agree that hereditary monarchy is more reasonable, it is just another form of government where the minority wealthy control everyone else.
Democracy does not fail it is destroyed when the wealthy take over a government. Democracy only works when everyone has equal voting power and the decisions made with that voting power benefit the majority of the population. When money is introduced into politics and government officials are bribed and bought the government is no longer a democracy because voting power is no longer equal. If those government decisions continue to increase wealth inequality and the government starts becoming oppressive than we will just have history repeating itself and another revolution...