Ultimately democracy can't exist where there are "those people" versus "us people". Lincoln's famous speech spoke of government "of the people, by the people and for the people", which only means something if "people" is a unified whole. Not "for us people, but not for those people". After all, the American civil war was about the inclusion of a different kind of "those people" in the voting pool and the abolition of the 3/5 compromise.
National unification is incredibly hard work, but worth trying.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills" -- Kennedy
(this applies very much to the UK as well, but I'm targeting a primarily American audience here)
But the question is if "pure" democracy is what you should be aiming for. It might be a flawed concept, just like a pure free market is considered flawed.
I didn't say anything about purity, which is always an impractical concept. I did mention unity, which is probably just as impractical. "Inclusivity" maybe.
The important things about both democracy and the rule of law is that people are willing to acquiesce to decisions not in their favour because they recognise the fairness of the process and have a voice in it.
National unification is incredibly hard work, but worth trying.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills" -- Kennedy
(this applies very much to the UK as well, but I'm targeting a primarily American audience here)