[Cydayshosse]

[Genuine curiosity]Can you expand on this a bit[/Genuine curiosity]

Indeed, it is an important concept...

If one considers the true character of democracy, it is apparent that several elements need to exist for that democracy to function as a democracy.

The single most important element needed is the rule of law needs to be absolute - there is no room for any arbitrary rules. That is to say, the rule of law must apply to all, equally. This is categorical.

After that ground, the next most important element is egalitarianism. Without egalitarianism, there is too great of a disparity of the citizenry and this produces an unavoidable situation where the rich will find things much easier if they just purchase the votes of the poor. This makes a mockery of the democracy. This is only possible if a middle class is not in a majority. The middle class of course can have their votes 'purchased' but the price is too prohibitively large for it to be purchased on any regular basis (due to the size and economic resources of the middle class).

With respect to egalitarianism, it is not necessary that it be absolute (only a valued goal in theory). Democracy is a reasonably flexible system and thus, is capable of functioning with some practical and earned in-egalitarianism - as long as it isn't too extreme (that is to say, polarised).

That is the 'theoretical' argument. Another way of looking at it is from a 'practical' perspective (assuming humans are little money-grubbers out for themselves).

That is to say, democracy can only function well for the best interest of the people, if and only if, the citizenry has a vested interest in the best interest of the nation - and themselves. (Note: 'the nation' and 'the people' are identical in a true democracy)

It is understood that 'the rich' all have a strong vested interest in the operation and financing of government (for obvious reasons). However, the poor in many ways do not have any (or only very little) vested interest in the operation and finance of the government. On this basis, poor people very rarely ever actually pay much attention to the subject - or concern themselves with the enterprise unless it is perceived that it directly harms them. All they really care about is what they get from it (which is why they are so easily bought).

It is only a middle class in the majority (or the largest minority of the three) that has sufficient economic resources to be concerned about how government is financed and sufficient economic interests to be concerned about how government is operated. Without this middle class interest in the finance and operation of government, the rich will therefore dominate (because they do have a strong vested interest no matter what).

The rule of the rich may not be an entirely bad idea, but it is not democratic in any way. Indeed, it is always the 'default option'. It is, unless you choose and actively support otherwise.