Sacred Haven of Debauchery

It depends on who you ask. For people, it's a great thing; for the masses, it's nonsense (everything is nonsense for them except food and a stable).

The problem is, Yaschur, that the masses usually live in society alongside people, and there are far more of them (according to your version, 95%). I don't understand why you want the masses to make decisions.
If we're being serious, democracy is a good thing. But it's very, very difficult: you need to ensure democracy in the style of ancient Greece, where all decisions are made jointly, and there are no "trusted individuals" who, although elected, make decisions on their own. At the same time, the population must have a very high level of education (I'm not talking about the ability to read and write), an interest in all matters of the state, and the ability to analyze possible solutions. Perhaps, to make this not so absurdly ideal, someone still needs to be involved in systematization and analysis, but there should be many such people, and they should not have any personal interest in it. Something like internet analysts who are incorruptible, and it is very important that they are indeed incorruptible. It is necessary to carefully monitor that no one sponsors them; money should come only from budgetary funds – as a reward for analytics that turn out to be correct and/or popular.
Apparently, this system is not functional at all in large societies (unlike Greek city-states) without the help of the global network. But with it... Who knows? But this is very far from the modern political system of any country, and... Oh, well, democracy – it might be possible, but not anytime soon.