Despite what it may say on the metaphorical can, democracy (at least, represntative democracy) is not a goverment "for the people". The only way the average citizen can influence the political situation in a democratic country is by either joining a major political party, voting for a major political party, or creating his own party.
The last option, creating one's own party, may seem attractive, but the extremely high costs of doing so render this option obsolete for the average person. Only the wealthy can afford to get involved in parliamentary democracy to a greater extent than simply joining one of the major parties - thus new and potentially great ideas are squashed by the system. Even if these new parties were to get off the ground, and hypothetically started to campaign for their new ideas to become law, they would likely be denounced as "extremist" by the majority of MPs.
People of initially poorer origins can potentially rise to become Prime Minister, who is essentialy a slave to his own party, and of other parties as well. What powers does the Prime Minister actually possess? In truth, not many. He can appoint ministers to a select few roles, declare war, etc. However, he cannot pass any new laws without first putting it through the long and arduous journey through the House of Commons, into the House of Lords and finally into law. Before being passed by the House of Commons, a bill must be read and voted for three times, then it must be read through and voted for in the Lords. Only then can it become an Act, or , law, with the Royal Assent. The nature of this form of government is very malevolent due to its inefficiency, regardless of the individual aims of the parties. Parliament is subject to infighting, as can be seen any time one watches a debate. Bills can be rejected, revised and then submitted again, rejected again, revised, passed by the Commons but then rejected by the Lords, etc. This is one of the principle flaws with democracy - real reform is delayed and is sometimes impossible. In a monarchist state, a new law that was obviously wanted by most people, could be passed virtually overnight.
This inefficiency also seeps into other areas such as the economy and thus social areas. Unemployment is a grave issue in our country, and despite empty promises made by party leaders, nothing is ever done. The government focuses on making slight amendments to the benefits system, without even trying to create new jobs.

In their manifesto, the Conservative party state "Over the last five years, we have put our country back on the right track. Five years ago, Britain was on the brink. As the outgoing Labour Treasury Minister put it with brutal candour, 'there is no money'. Since then, we have turned things around." " More people are in work than ever before", they say. This is not the case in many areas - especially in the more suburban towns, where there are little to no jobs to be found. This is especially apparent with young people, who are rejected from employment in any workplaces that do have vacancies due to them not having any experience, which they cannot aqcuire due to there also being no local voluntary jobs and because nowhere will employ them. This is a vicious circle that needs to be broken. Democracy won't bring this. We have seen time and time again the brutal inefficency of this government, and how long it takes for them to do anything. Cameron's manifesto also advocates "strong leadership", and yet along with most other political parties they have the gall to reject absolute monarchy, which is by its very nature a strong, centralised and caring leadership.
Another problem with our current system is the fact that most of the major parties that actually have any bearing on the way are country is run are bribed and corrupted by wealthy backers. This allows them to run their huge campaigns and also allows them the most publicity, but at the expense of forfeiting their supposed desired goals, playing into the hands of the wealthiest, and going against the wishes of the majority. Could the argument be made that the United Kingdom is a Plutocracy? Absolutely. But that's not what matters. If there is a Plutocracy, it's because of the democracy, and that's what needs to be dismantled.

Unknown18 February 2016 at 10:36
Western democracy is a neo-colonial invention, to rule through the often stupid, ignorant and criminal MNAs and MPs, the elected representatives of the people. They are chosen, without any condition of qualification, capability and experience, merely on the basis of media manipulations looking more like film actors, the political actors than politicians, to represent the people, but they form the government. In the government, they are more interested in their corruption and benefits, profits more than anything else. A collection of such political actors are sufficient to destroy a country, and many have been destroyed by them. In every western democracy country without some sort of monarch to serve as sovereign and a neutral arbiter over and above the always fighting political parties, there has been civil wars, directly related to the persons and process of democracy. Democracy is a system by the ignorants, for the ignorants and of the ignorants. Democracy creates retarded people. Pakistani/Indian democracy, however, is a Mobocracy. The worst form of government system according to Aristotle, according to whom, the best form of government system is “The Semi-Constitutional, non-heredity, Social Monarchy”, where anybody with a merit could become a monarch. Modern political parties were created in Germany by the Catholic Church, to serve as an alternate form of Roman Catholic government, loyal to Vatican rather than to their own country.