I believe an ideal society would be made up of a combination of all three, however, at the core there should be an informed citizenry.  By having an informed public, a wise leader, sound process, and expert knowledge can arise naturally giving us (ideally) a well-rounded society.

A question such as this poses a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” problem. The “chicken or the egg” issue becomes clear when we read Dewey’s statement that, our political structure was initially built by “a group of men extraordinarily gifted in political inventiveness.” Here, Dewey—the promoter of an informed citizenry—gives credence to the importance of experts and/or wise leaders. However, once those leaders and experts developed a system in place, it was left to an informed public to keep it working.

Furthermore, once the public has become informed, they themselves can either keep in place or restructure any established procedures. Those procedures in turn develop a process for electing a wise leader. Or, on the other hand, both a wise leader and experts can rise from the informed public and establish sound processes.

While the system may have been started by a group of “extraordinarily gifted” men, it has not been successful due to experts. Even more so, its failure will come about, not solely due to poor leadership, but also due to an uninformed public. Some might even say that this is what is happening in the US today. (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ignorance-index-reveals-most-uninformed-nations-italy-us-south-korea-top-oblivious-list-1472319)