You've got an ocracy?? (Part II)

So just how democratic is our Parliamentary system? Well, if we go back to the basic ideal that democracy means that each person has an equal right to have their voice heard, the answer has to be "not very". At present we have a government with a very comfortable majority for which only just over one person in three voted. And that's not a snipe at this particular government. I think I'm right in saying that every post-war government has been elected on less (and in most cases, considerably less) than 50% of the votes cast. This wouldn't matter so much if MPs did what they ought to do, which is represent their constituents, but with a very few honourable exceptions, they don't - they do what their party tells them to, irrespective of the wishes or best interests of those they are supposed to be representing. Indeed, what we like to think of as our "democracy" is much closer to what Lord Hailsham referred to in 1976 as an "elective dictatorship". If you voted for Party A, but Party B got in, you're going to have no say in what goes on, at least until the next election. Does this all really matter? After all, it's a system which has developed over centuries, and although we may slam a few doors and kick the cat when election results go against us, for the most part we are content with it. Well, it does to the extent that when we talk about "bringing democracy" to Iraq or Afganistan or wherever, this is what we are talking about - not democracy as such but Western parliamentary democracy, and what I'm not at all sure anybody has really thought through is whether that model, which serves us well enough for all its faults, is really suitable for others.
P.S. I see that Condoleezza Rice is over here to talk to Tony Blair about "Iran's nuclear programme" - why do I get this feeling of "Oh, God, here we go again"?