Here is a Question and Answer on Quora that I particularly liked:

Is it true that democracy is really the worst political system except for all the others?

Gisli Ingvarsson, former Self Employed - Liberal Arts

Answered 54m ago

Democracy is a paraply concept over many different traditions. Firstly we have to select the Public electorate (men and/or women over 18, permanent citizens, etc) and secondly how much influence the electorate has on the political processes. Most western style democracies relay on ‘representative’ democracy. By voting regularly it is possible to change those who represent the public. This is held to be the most practical way of electing governments as it is highly likely that they will have a majority of the public behind its decisions.

The constitution is on three pillars preferably independent: The executive, legislative and judicial. The fourth pillar is free expression that has made the ‘Media’ a big influential part of the democratic process. Control of the media has become the most decisive element in producing consensus that the public can accept from time to time to be the relevant political topics and issues to put forward.

More narrowly chosen rulers like The Army, The One and only ruling party, the Dictator, Clergy, or what one may think of is usually not able to manage a more complex society or navigate through necessary change of direction from one time to another. In times of unrest a dictatorship is kind of needed or preferred. Only few democratic countries have the ability to rule in a time of turmoil without having freedom of speech and expression suppressed.

Religious freedom is often held separate from the freedom of speech by ‘blasphemy laws’. As the western societies have evolved, the freedom from religion has been an important issue and ‘secularisation’ a new brand of managing common needs as education and health care. This is not easily dealt with democratically and is still a ‘hot potato’ in most societies today.

Democracy is not a static solution and is constantly under existential threat from very divers sources as more rights to minorities are established. It should be stronger by diversity but in practice it seems even more fragile if not very well managed. The fault lines can be too deep to repair if the crude majority is not behind governmental decisions. I’m convinced that a majority has to be respected at all times. If not the minorities will have to suffer. Minorities by definition don’t have all that much in common when it comes to legislation. That’s why democracy can’t be the rule of the any identifiable minority.

The common ground will always be nudged a little bit to the minority and as such a bit blurred in its contours. Never satisfying everybody but still the better than a forced rule of any smaller minority interest.

The rigid representative form of democracy is still the best. Alternative, by public voting directly on bills, produced by any prominent influential figure is not sustainable and probably disastrous.