Are you sure that it's the democracy which is the cause of your country's trouble?
If we consider the counterfactual scenario where your country was not democratic, instead ruled either by some autocrat, theocracy, military junta or something similar, how would that go? While you can find examples of dysfunctional democracies, it still appears to have a better success rate than non-democratic systems.
My question is - what's the alternative which would work better for your country? Looking at your profile, you're from Africa, where the typical alternative is either a military junta or a theocracy. Why do you think that those would lead to better outcomes in your country?
From what I see around the world for democracy to work it needs a certain degree of social cohesion, which some countries lack. The prevalence of some characteristics (ex: fanaticism, tribalism, corruption) are incompatible with democracy, and will ruin shortly attempts to have "working democracies".
Some western countries (not all, guess is obvious who :-p) tended to think simplistically that if the system works for them it will work for everybody so they try to "impose it".
What I have to admit now is that while this does not seem to always work, I don't consider "others" as having a much better alternative either.
It is amazing tho how they always impose it choosing the corrupt leaders that sell all state Enterprise and national resources for pennies to said western country "multinationals"
Did that change much for me as an individual on the spot? Not much - they were people taking advantage before an after and most people were poor.
Did it change the possibilities on long term? It did. 20 years later there are more developments and opportunities than before under the "authoritarian" regime. Is it equally spread and for everybody? No. But neighbor countries that did not go through the change have it worse...
I am sure not all countries have this trajectory, but some do, YMMV
I'm not religious myself. But in my country, if someone is actively suicidal (say they are standing on top of a building, planning to jump) they are (forcefully) stopped. I think that's a good thing. Now, of I was religious, I would believe that sinning (and therefore going to hell) would be way way way worse to do to oneself, even when compared to suicide. So just like I agree with forcefully preventing someone from following their will to commit suicide, I would probably agree with forcefully preventing people from sinning.
If you are religious (and believe that sinning = hell), these laws make a lot of sense. Perhaps they should be even harsher.
Firstly, you conflate your personal feelings with the rule of law. You may personally agree or disagree with preventing people from committing suicide, or violating religious norms, but that should be completely separate from whether you think the government should enforce your personal belief on people who believe otherwise. In a democracy, the government is not there to enforce your beliefs, it is there to prevent other people's beliefs from overriding your right to have your own.
[edit: This is also an aspect of democracy that is not well understood in countries with a history of authoritarian or majoritarian rule. Democracies are an engine of creating higher efficiency and flourishing because they tend to protect minority views and are thus open to constant change and debate, which in turn are the drivers of economic growth. In authoritarian minds, change and debate are viewed as hindrances or dangers to the status quo; thus such societies stagnate. I'm practically explaining how Lebanon can't generate a home-made pager whilst a similarly sized country next door and carved up from the Ottoman empire at the same time... which prizes individuality and debate... can, well... nevermind]
Secondly, you make a false assumption that just because a society agrees with you on one thing, you must agree with it on everything else. It would be perfectly rational to be against both the death penalty and against abortion, yet many people are for one and against the other. You make a case that if you lived in a society where the morality pointed a certain way, it would be natural for yourself just to go along without questioning its hypocrisy. That is, quite literally, you are making a case for not thinking for yourself as an individual or seeing anything wrong with the contradictions of whatever society you live in.
It is our duty as human beings to point out the contradictions and hypocrisy in ourselves and our societies, to improve them. You are making the most retrograde, anti-liberal case possible by saying you would not question the values you were surrounded by.
Even if you're the government, you can't write a law or enforce a law against, say, adultery. You can stop - or at least reduce - the external behavior. But you can't change hearts by an external law. You just create people who are different on the outside than they are on the inside. "Hypocrites" is a term for that, which comes from the Greek word for "actors" - people who pretend to be something they're not.
That's not going to keep them from hell. It might keep them from jail, but that's not the same thing.
Since you live in a democratic county, the solution to this is very simple: Vote for someone who doesn't serve the west.
