A couple of years ago, I tried imagining democracy from the point of view of some oligarchs at the top of their society - and, oddly enough, noticed that there seems to be a path by which a hierarchical, authoritarian society might decide to implement something resembling democratic reforms. Certain preconditions seem to be necessary:

• The oligarchs need to be divided into competing factions, each struggling for dominance. (Nearly a certainty.)
• The people need to be able to make a difference in the dominance struggle. (Eg, by being well-armed - longbows, crossbows, and rifles seem likely candidates)
• The oligarchs need to be smart enough to avoid /unnecessary/ fights, to conserve their strength for the necessary ones.

Which leads to:

• Some bright boy coming up with the idea of counting up the popular support for the oligarchical factions, so their input into the struggles can be figured out without having to go to all the trouble and muss of actually fighting.

I'm not a professional historian, so I'm not sure how well this can be argued to map to historical developments of democracies. But, at the least, it seems to be within the general bounds of plausibility, and doesn't make it into classroom civics classes, so it provides an alternate perspective to look at the whole shebang from, so if nothing else, it seems to be a useful mental tool, even if it's not an accurate description.