> A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power.

This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract.

> We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.

Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors.

Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power.

Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution.

You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.