That is simply not true. Having the power to vote does not make a nation a democracy. North Korea holds elections, they have the “power to vote”, do you believe they are a democracy?

Ancient Sparta is generally now, and in the past, considered to have been an oligarchy. Even though both the Ephors and The Gerousia were elected. In fact, part of the reason it was considered an oligarchy is because these officials were elected. Sparta even had an assembly (all the citizens) who could approve and reject measures, however their approval could be “vetoed” by the Gerousia. The Gerousia were also the ones allowed to put forth measures or laws, the assembly could not.

In ancient Athens, widely regarded as having a democracy (there are obvious times when this was not the case), officials were chosen by lot. The reason was that this would keep the power with the people, whereas elections would solidify the power into the hands of the few, especially the wealthy who could afford the time and money to campaign (seem familiar?). Any Athenian could introduce measures or laws to be voted on by the assembly.

Representative democracy certainly has more positive connotations than oligarchy (currently), but it is essentially descriptive of an oligarchy. We, politicians included, refer to ourselves like this because it gives the impression that the power of government rests with the people. This is clearly not the case, the power of the government rests with the few.

Whether the few are hereditary or elected (as in Sparta) does not change the fact that the power is with that few. You and I can neither vote on laws nor introduce laws to be voted on, that power rests solely with the few.

Oligarchy, like democracy, is neither inherently good nor bad. It simply describes how the government is.