@TheCamelGuy
There is not a single genuine democracy (at least comparable to Western European democracies and everything this entails) in the Arab world let alone the Muslim world. Can you mention such a country because I don't know it?
Also as you know already the Middle East, at least currently, is not exactly a region where democracy, even if the people wanted, could flourish in. Did democracy flourish in Europe pre-1945 or even pre-1989? It did not least of all during wars and conflicts.
Besides for a democracy to function as it was intended to you need the right environment and enlightened voters. If not the end result will be only as good as the environment and electorate allows it to be. Case in point Iraq which has been a "democracy" since 2003 on paper but what does this matter when it has not brought anything good (that an enlightened dictator - on paper at least such as the Emir of Kuwait could not have given the country?) other than allowing people to vote every 4 years or so? 20% of the population is illiterate and the single votes of that contingent of voters counts as much as 80% of the voters who can read and write.
Why give power/enable people to have power if those people are unable to act as they should or unable to fulfill their responsibilities as voters and citizens?
Personally I would never agree to democracy if 100% of all potential voters in KSA would want to turn KSA into an "Islamic Republic" modeled after Iran for instance. Or another failed project. In such a case I would much rather prefer an enlightened meritocracy as "undemocratic" and "elitist" as this sounds. At the end of the day even in Western democracies the average voter has little say at the end of the day.
It's better for a minority to rule if that minority does the job they should do rather than the dumb/unqualified majority.