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.

Even a healthy democracy needs an engaged citizenry. When citizens become too comfortable and leave governing to others, democracy slips into oligarchy. Theoretically, the reins of power are still available to the masses if they care to take them up, but in reality that's probably not entirely true. While the masses were busy with their own pursuits, the small cadre of engaged citizens could have entrenched their own interest groups and solidified their hold on power. And from there, it's only a few more steps on the spectrum before the nation finds itself with a dictatorship. If citizens don't demand that their government take care of them, their government won't. Conversely, those who demand attention from the government will receive it. So, in that citizens lose their political power through disuse, more engagement by citizens is better.

Of course, one might believe that more engagement by citizens is bad. The argument might be that most people are stupid or selfish, or that they just don't know what's best for themselves. Less insulting is the argument that most people simply don't have the time to really become educated on all sides of a policy issue, and that it's better for everyone if they just keep out of governing rather than of course, you might thing engagement is bad b/c people are stupid, representatives know better. ppl incapable of nuance in policy. don't want them getting used to demanding immediate results on everything they dont like. but that's just a matter of what you believe about democracy. we're going from assumption that ppl are capable of governing themselves, and that leaders shouldn't be the ones deciding when ppl should get invovled without ppl knowing why. that's dangerous.