Basically, the point about civil law is that a government set up that way is virtually a dictator over the people of the nation. There isn't really any democracy. Government rules by giving itself best benefit by allowing the people democratic-like freedom.
Legal
systems have almost nothing to do whatsoever with whether any given country is a democracy or not.
In simple analysis, this is correct. However, in a democracy, if the elected governing officials don't make the legal system match what the majority wants, they lose their job. Sometimes before their term is up. So, the legal system depends on the democracy.
It is definitely true that without rule of law, democracy is impossible, but that's an underlying legal principle, not a legal system.
Civil law as a legal system has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not a government "sets up" a civil code which will define whether or not the jurisdiction, executive and legislative can be considered compatible with a democracy.
The American legal system is common law, making the laws unimportant, although the ignorance of the people makes the people think the laws are important. Jury nullification can change any and all laws in America any time.
In a democracy - which we don't have in America - if the people vote in a guy who promises jury nullification regarding the laws, and then sets it up as he promised, the laws change faster than ever. Why? Because they don't mean anything with jury nullification around. The jury is the law.
Please, before stating such nonsense as you did, rtfm, i.e. go to a library, get the books in the "law 101" section and read!
Please, before you start getting all legalistic and picky about words and phrases, look at the theme.
