A lot of Americans equate democracy with majority rule, but that's a gross over simplification. For example, you can have 2/3 rule or even consensus and its still called democratic decision making. Mob rule is also a form of majority rule, but is not considered democratic. At the very least democracy requires the right to speak your peace before any vote takes place and at least majority rule. Most agree it requires certain traditions and protections for minorities as well.
Because everyone gets to speak and be heard it maximizes the amount of information everyone has to make a decision. Those involved must feel that at least occasionally the process brings forth information valuable enough to justify all the work involved. If not then the process becomes a mere facade for tradition, mob rule, maintaining the status quo, or whatever. Therefore whether people feel personally involved in the process or that the process is fair are both secondary concerns. First and foremost the process must justify itself by producing results that cannot be achieved any other way and that the majority of the group feels is valuable enough to continue using the process.
The hard part is, of course, communicating effectively and listening effectively. All the information in the world will do you no good if you cannot communicate it effectively and people will not listen. This is why most agree that democracy also requires certain traditions and protections for minorities as well. If effective communications break down it can lead to minorities no longer participating in the process until, again, it becomes a facade for something other then a democratic process.
Facebook
Twitter