You totally misunderstand the point of democratic rule. Freedom and democracy are two different and not necessarily related things (just ask Socrates).

Working democracy means exchanging members of ruling elite for others on a regular schedule, without leaders-for-life or having to resort to revolutions. This allows to have stable and consistent sets of laws which do not change drastically with every turn. Consistent laws (and elite having to mostly follow them to get their turn) means that the rule of law becomes possible. This in turn allows businesses to work without being robbed or having to hide their money abroad. This permits productive (and more or less stable) economy.

Yes, rulers have to throw a bone to the public, or their fellow elite member will be chosen instead. But this is merely a bonus on top of the previous two.

Although this does not happen often, a democratic society could have draconian laws, with little freedom for the citizen. Fortunately, people do want and gradually can get more freedom in democratic societies. Key word is "gradually": once there is a feeling that there was too much freedom, conservatives win the elections.

All of the above is something you might appreciate, having a "choice" between juntas and beards. Without even a ceremonial input from you. You had a little bit of democracy; but uneducated population wanted less freedom and more Sharia, so its wishes were granted. Is military dictatorship better? Hard to tell, but look at Iran - even their sort-of-democracy helps them to slowly reduce the degree of fundamentalism.