Before I start this topic, I want to note that I am all for democracy as the best form of government.  It is one of our greatest strengths.  But of course, our greatest strengths often turn out to be our greatest weaknesses.
 
I'm not going to go into how our incarnation of democracy is flawed.  That is another topic.  I want to look at the idea of democracy and the philosophical concepts and imaginations behind it. The very foundation of it.
 
First we should dip into a bit of social contract theory...pretty much *the* political theory that our democracy was based on.  It's a thought experiment that gives us a useful tool for thinking about what sorts of governments we want to set up.  We are supposed to imagine that no one is associated with anyone else.  Everyone is completely free and completely isolated.  What would be our reasons for choosing to associate with each other?  Why would we want a social contract and what would it look like?
 
Social contract theory is different depending on what you believe the "state of nature" to be.  In democratic thought, we assume that without government, we'd be pretty decent, but we wouldn't be safe.  So we enter into an agreement with the people around us to ensure our safety and to make sure we all get to contribute to the collective outcome.  We try to maintain our personal freedom, but yet be respectful of those around us.  We come up with the saying "I can do whatever I want, as long as I don't get in the way of other people's freedom."

In political science, this is known as a "negative liberty" because it specifies what we shouldn't do rather than what we should. It is important to mention that "negative" in this context does not mean bad by any means.
 
Like I said, incredibly useful tool for thinking about politics and government.  But think about it, it fosters the sort of imagination that says we are isolated and independent.  We can freely choose our associations with people and can at any time withdraw from those associations.  The problem is that the political thought experiment seeps down into our imagination of society in general and of our personal relationships.
 
Now let's shift away from the political and see how this imagination is used in daily personal life.  
 
If I am alone and independent and free to do what I want, then when people need things from me, it becomes a burden on my freedom.  When you had something fun planned, and a friend asks for your help moving into his new apartment, doesn't it feel like he's somehow restricting you?  Relationships with other people become things that weigh you down.  Sure, there are things you enjoy about your relationships, but when the going gets tough, we sometimes feel trapped by what we consider our "duties" to others.  We wish we could just get rid of our obligations not just to others, but to our jobs and to our daily lives.
 
But is this really the kind of freedom that we want?  As human beings, do we really want to be free from all obligations?  Do we want to be alone?  Aren't we more interconnected than our imaginations give us credit for?  Is there another way to construct our imaginations?
 
Imagine now that everyone is connected.  That we can't make a move in life without affecting someone else.  That the way to happiness is love, and the way to love is *through* those obligations.  In fact, let's stop calling them obligations and duties, as those words denote that we have same imagination as before.  Instead, let's see helping people as an expression of our deepest desire to be one with others.  Why would you want to be free from the expression of who you are at base?  Instead, the freedom we want with this imagination is a freedom for love.  A "positive liberty" of expression.
 
Isn't spirituality and religion pointing us something more along these lines?
 
I see so many people who are disjointed.  Their spirituality points them in one direction, but they can't completely make sense of it because they are still stuck with the social contract imagination.  This leads to the inconsistent and almost hypocritcal actions that we see every day from generally "good" people.  
 
We are brought up with ideas and imaginations that naturally conflict.  It is important to try to trace those ideas back to the source, and to evaluate our basic view of the world and human nature and where they come from.  There are more sources that you would think, and maybe aren't compatible.  You might find, as I did, that some of your opinions stem from positions that you don't feel you should agree with.  
 
From there, we can form consistent opinions that might actually lead to an improvement in our world. As of right now though, we are too internally conflicted to enact any sort of real change.