Dog's View of Democracy

Been hearing a lot lately about this term "democracy", and had to wake the Dog up for some thoughts....
The Dog, fresh from sojourn to Key West and visits with Ernie Hemingway and Hunter Thompson, remains groggy as Aerosmith's "Same Old Song and Dance" rips the dust from the microbials...
First thought... ala Hunter, don't confuse democracy with democrats.
Second thought, ala Ernie, the one thing they do have in common is that nobody really understands either of them.
The Dog's basically a socialist democrat with a lot of growing conservative tendencies. An old Dog revolutionary who has a mix of patience, experience, and apathos now running through his veins. An FDR Democrat, an Eisenhower Republican, a George Meany Unionist, who talks to himself.
So, given all of that babble-on... one of the brightest memories of my Boulder education is hearing that democracy and capitalism are two systems that are inherently self-destructive. Ken Boulding was a wise man.
I also remember, and still believe, the line, "leadership must be greatly participative, but it can never be democratic". Sacrilege !! Blasphemy !!! No dears, THE truth.
But, what, exactly, is democracy? Not your theoretical, your reality.
Noah's Webster's notes that it doesn't mean everybody necessarily gets a vote in the way things happen, but it does cite majority rule. A lot of Wisconsites choose to forget their present governor won by majority vote.... was it "bait and switch"? Don't think so...it was apathetic voters and democracy self-destructing.
Anyway, contrary to what some people may believe or think they want, we will never have total democracy in politics or in business management. We can't/won't/don't put everything out for a voite and sure 'nuf it ain't majority rule.
BUT, democracy must have cooperative participation to thrive and be survivable.
What do I mean by that? Wake up the polticians (elected and otherwise) at this point and ask them to pay attention...
Quite simply, it is people in decision making roles getting as much relevant input and ideas on issues and decisions that they deal with.
It is decision makers seeking out input and opinions from other people WHO WORK CLOSE to the issues and WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED by any decisions made.
(Good Gawd Awmighty, do I REALLY have to tell you this?)
It is decision makers seeking out as much information as possilbe within the time available, to enable any decision made to be as fair and equitable as possible, and in the best interest of the people.
The most important part of the Webster's definition is the idea of striving for "principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community".
But, and the most misunderstood piece of this puzzle...at the end of all that information and opinion gathering, SOMEONE has to actually make a decision. Democracy does involve someone being in charge and making decisions.
Near as I can tell, "style" comes into play here more than substance. Particularly in the political arena and certainly in Madison, Wisconsin.
These decisions may not be popular. But that doesn't make them bad. "Leaders" really do have to venture out alone and take people where they don't necessarily want to go... because the leader, in his or her heart of hearts, believes that is the right thing to do.

Don't get your hopes up Scottie, I'm really not referring to you here. You've got a ways to go.