democracy. to what extent

It is a common belief that a democratic society generates an opportunity to have a say among residents, whereas some people argue that it does not benefit for the sake of ordinary people but upper-level groups, but it does not witness the people-run society. On the one hand, there are many advantages which potentially cater for citizens political power. First and foremost, we are entitled to weigh up on the candidates who may be answerable to, and removable by people in a limited period. This eschews the possibility of an abuse of law enforcement employed by chronic authorities. For example, if the government imposed some unacceptable rules, it would be a provision to recall as they did not live up to their promises. Secondly, given bundles of democratic pratices such as referendum and proportional representation, citizens can raise their voices in order to remedy the existing, social problems. Thus, the comparable legislation is projected reflecting the will of them. On the other hand, on a nation scale, it seems to be impossible to be compatible with the true democratic system. It is noteworthy that the power, which is assumed to be devolved to the populace, is isolated within the elite of politicians and civil servants. They, in fact, are able to manifest the refults regardless of the electorates' votes. It is evident in our life that the term "democracy" is mere tokens or rhetoric gestures which politicians compete to position this ideology in voters' mind. Last but not least, government cannot select stances on individuals. The parliament ought to consider the minorities, elites, workers and vulnerable divisions, making the residential power have no input as it is not adequately informed. In conclusion, democracy is undeniably essentiall in the rational and civilized community. However, the imperfect world cannot foster this notion in terms of benefitting people.