Democracy is just a form of governance, of which the power to decide lies more in the hands of the people (compared to others).
Keyword being power. Nothing about requirement of morality, ethics, humanitarian values, altruistic behaviour, spiritual enlightenment, unified vision, etc. Purely only power to decide.

Democracy is just force multiplier that depends on the people. Unlike monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc., the people ultimately decides the direction it's steered.
Bad for when majority are self-destructive, good when they're unified for a greater good. Sometimes those 2 are interpreted interchangeably subjective to the people.
Let's take normalizing prostitution for example. It's a vice at the end of the day, yet some communities weighed them as 'good for society' instead of not and pushed for its implementation.

Your question can be explored in 2 distinct direction.
1. Address type of governance for the current group people. (Usually frowned upon by ANY form of governance btw. Questioning quality execution is one thing, questioning the type implies revolutionary thinking. People in power don't like to be not in power.)
2. Address group of people that make up the current governance.

Also you said about things moving quickly like online security & mufti bills, you can still do things like writing to your local MP (making sure they address this in parliament),
conveying it to the party that you think would support your stance, or if you rallied enough people you can even make your own party and contest. Have you done any of what's available to you?
Imagine that in most other form of governance where power is even more concentrated. If the person(s) in power decided it to be so, you wouldn't even be able to anything about it.

tl:dr people say politicians are stupid, but are the rest of the population much better? They too are individuals cut from the same cloth.