Note 1

"In a system that is ostensibly run by the people, more engagement by citizens is better."

The foregoing statement needs some unpacking.

First, in a system that does not have a democracy, the citizens are probably used to being told what to do, and don't even think of themselves as agents of governmental power. Unless the dictator decides to cede power to a democratic government (which is exceedingly rare), or a foreign nation decides to "liberate" the nation and impose democracy (which is becoming less rare), the people are going to have to take power for themselves. While a few highly motivated individuals can start the movement, they must have support from a critical mass of the population. So, in that democratic revolutions need ideological (and sometimes physical) armies to succeed, more engagement by citizens is better.

On a related note, once a nation transitions into democracy, the citizens have to care enough to maintain it. Experience shows that democracy tends to devolve back into dictatorship if the leadership is left to itself. If citizens fail to demand that their leaders act in a democratic fashion, those leaders will be happy to take power from the people. More mature democracies need less vigilance than nascent ones, but not much less. So, in that democracies need individual citizens to jealously guard their right to be governed by a democracy, more engagement by citizens is better.