A representative in government is not beneficial to you unless you know that the rep is going to have your views in mind when he gets to government. You don't know what he will do unless he is a close friend, and even then he might not act with you in mind, in your best interests, or according to his stated election platform.
The point of common law is that formal government remains voluntary. Any time you don't like some law, you can take it to the jury, and the community of people who form the jury - usually 12 people - can nullify the law in your case, for you. If enough juries nullify the same law for a bunch of individuals, the law goes on trial for lawfulness and is repealed if it is found to not be lawful in the eyes of the people... according to their jury adjudication.
This beats democracy all over the place, and monarchies and dictatorships as well.
But people who live in common law countries - the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, and a few more - can't use what they don't know exists. Government people like to keep things like common law hidden from the people, because then they can influence the people as though the government were a dictator. Democracy is a silly idea that hands dictatorship over to government, but usually to a handful of people who run things in the background.
The masses of India are far from understanding any of this. When Britain ruled India, they tried to free the people with common law. But the people have essentially gone back to the caste system, although common law is still there for them to use.
All the political BS you see flying around in the various major common law countries is simply a turning of those countries towards civil law (caste law in India), which is simply a form of governmental dictatorship, although it is somewhat limited by the political screaming of the masses.
Then truthfully we are not talking about Democracy. We are talking about a representational government that is limited by a constitution. There can be no law, no juries, no judges without an agreed upon framework that limits the power of the law makers.
Example we have people in the US that are trying to limit the right to bear arms, putting absurd limits and requirements. The recourse are the laws which, are themselves, based upon the Constitution.
Democracy is different than what people normally consider. It isn't a democracy of people directly voting for government officials... at least not all the time. Often it is the representatives from the various "States" democratically voting for government officials. But they vote according to what the people of their "State" want, one would hope. So, it is democracy.
A constitution both limits the power of governing officials, but also requires and allows them to make laws.
Regarding your example of the right to bear arms in the USA, all laws fall under the thing that the Constitution was set up to be. The Preamble says that the Constitution has to be a benefit, but it doesn't say how it is to be a benefit. Judging Constitution and laws to be a benefit is left up to the people, themselves, via the jury. If the people judge it to be a benefit, it applies. If they judge the other way, it doesn't apply.
Here is what the USA Constitution really governs... two things: 1) border control (State to State, and State to International); 2) the coining of money. The major thing that the Constitution
doesn't control is the rights of the people to own property, from their own bodies, to guns, to land, to anything else that they consider they can show is their property. The right to trial by jury proves this.
The Amendments do two things: 1) they emphasize certain rights that the people think are important, so that government doesn't mess with those things; 2) they blind the eyes of the people to the fact that the substance of the Amendments would be in effect even if there weren't any Amendments... at least regarding the Bill of Rights Amendments... through jury control in common law.
India is different in the fact that the common law of Britain is partially codified. This makes the common law of India to be upheld by a formal MUST regarding how the jury decides that government must act. The danger is that the common law might be broken by some shrewd politicians figuring out a way to legally bypass it using code. However, the fact that India is formally going back to the Caste system, shows that the people are slowly using common law to destroy common law.
