"Democracy" was not famous until last few centuries. Famous political system till then was "Dynastic". i.e. the dynasty was not only prevalent among the ruler clan (i.e. Kshatriya), but also intellectuals & priests (Brahmana), business class (i.e. Vaishya) and the worker or server class (i.e. Shudra).
In such social systems, generations after generations, people would try to perfect only certain skillset without giving way to their passion towards other fields.
Democracy is different in following ways:
- It gives freedom of speech and action to everyone (limited by constitution)
- It's contagious -- i.e. From topmost system (ruling) to the bottom most system (family), everyone can express their right/wrong views without fear
- Everyone are treated as same; e.g. the vote/opinion of intellectual is not counted higher than the normal worker
- Ruler is obliged to people and not the other way around
- Ruler is non permanent & volatile; The advantage of his/her genes are not trivially carry forwarded; Their children have to start from 0 to get into power
Above points, if read carefully looks lucrative on face value, but are also detrimental towards basic social system. A good answer may point out nature of Dharma and how the democracy would satisfy/dissatisfy it?
Can democracy naturally uphold Dharma? (naturally = without "if"s)
Related: Democracy in Hinduism
