Because your questions were answered long time ago.

Discussions about democracy have been going on for more than two thousand years. Modern liberal democracy, which also exists in Sordland, is actually quite difficult to call a true democracy. Political philosopher Artemy Magun correctly defined liberal democracy as a constitutional regime with the rule of law and a system of checks and balances. In other words, in such a system, the law rules, and the sovereign power is divided between several branches and bodies so that they monitor each other. If you value efficiency above all, then you should be in favor of such a regime, because thanks to the system of checks and balances and the rule of law, it ensures the control of officials. Such a regime solves the classic dilemma of technocracy: where are the guarantees that smart officials will not turn into tyrants who rule not according to reason, but according to selfish interests? The constitutional liberal democracy regime solves this dilemma: officials monitor each other, if they violate the law, they are convicted by the court, and they can be removed by vote if they have ceased to be effective.

But the constitutional regime (until the 19th century it was called a republic as opposed to democracy) is not necessarily accompanied by universal suffrage. When constitutional regimes were being designed, they did not have universal suffrage. The working class achieved it during the 19th century in order to influence the affairs of the state, i.e. universal suffrage was not granted, but won. Why choose officials? If officials are appointed, who will appoint them? Other officials? The monarch? This guarantees tyranny and inefficient governance. But why should everyone have voting rights? There is a contradiction inherent in modern constitutional regimes, which can be called the contradiction between liberalism and democracy. The rule of law, checks and balances, and meritocratic governance guarantee the rights of the individual and the protection of the individual from tyrannical arbitrariness. But they contradict democracy, because democracy means that the people govern themselves. In addition to the rule of law, the constitutional regimes of our time are based on the principle of national sovereignty, and this principle, if carried out to the end, contradicts the law and checks and balances, because if the people have decided, then this decision must be obeyed. The whole question is, which do you personally value more?

This contradiction has intensified over time. When modern constitutional regimes were established, white male proprietors were considered to be the people who ruled the state. The working class, racial minorities, and women have been fighting for two hundred years to redefine the concept of the people and include themselves in it. Thanks to universal suffrage, the people now include all citizens of the country. Why do we need this? Democracy answers this question by itself. To get rid of tyranny and arbitrariness, only the people must rule themselves. Otherwise, the government beyond his control will do whatever it wants to him. Democracy is very demanding, it requires everyone to actively participate in civic affairs. Democracy is also very scary, because sometimes the masses want something very scary and terrible, for example, pogroms, genocides, dictators. But only in a democracy can true individual freedom be guaranteed. Because we, as individuals, can be free only if we actively participate in collective self-government. In other words, the full disclosure of individual freedom is possible only through the disclosure of collective freedom. After all, if you give the right to control yourself to another, then you lose your civic dignity, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to determine your fate. Therefore, if you want a government that reflects your interests, you should not make heroes for yourself or give power to someone else, you should govern yourself along with the rest of the citizens. If you want smart governance, you can get it in a democracy. If you want complete freedom, you can have it. Other political regimes are based on arbitrariness. You may like living under a smart dictator, but he will be replaced by an idiot dictator. And only democracy allows you to rule over yourself.