We could call this the axiom of non-meritocracy. By definition, universal franchise allows more or less anybody to stand for election, as well as to vote. There are no mandatory sanity tests. There are no educational qualifications. There is no upper limit of age eligibility.
Another assumption is, of course, that crowdsourcing and review (via regular elections) are effective processes. It is assumed that voters will pick the candidates who suit them best, and discard them if they don't deliver within a set period. Call this the axiom of crowdsourcing.
Also Read
Any critique of democracy must challenge those two central axioms. One can argue governance is a difficult task. It cannot be delivered except by people with suitable aptitudes and the right training. One may also argue that instead of being chosen by the ballots of the Great Unwashed, such persons could be selected either by themselves or by people with an aptitude for judging who is likely to deliver good governance.
Every alternative political system does, in fact, run contrary to the central axioms. Religious oligarchs claim mandate from God. Communist politburos claim to understand the proletariat and its needs better than the proletariat understands itself. Secular strongmen imply an ability to grab power and hold on to it translates into a better understanding of how to use power.
It is actually difficult to defend the axioms in totality, by logic and evidence alone. The method of choice does matter because people are happier if they believe they have some control over their environment. Regular elections are useful because elections create a relatively painless process for the review and replacement of poor choices.
But there are umpteen examples of democracy delivering poor governance. There are also umpteen examples of non-democracies delivering great suffering. One may say that, on average, democracies deliver less extreme outcomes. This is due to the checks and balances on the power of one person, or of a single coterie.
There are also many examples of non-democratic meritocracies delivering good governance. China is an obvious example. The politburo is a meritocracy, which has delivered fantastic improvements to the quality of Chinese life. Ditto South Korea and Taiwan. "Semi-democracies" like Singapore and Malaysia, where franchise is hedged by restrictions favouring specific groups, have also delivered good governance.
Even the most egalitarian of democracies does place some weight on merit. The logical conclusion of the axiom of non-meritocracy would be to choose bureaucrats by crowdsourcing, review and discard them, as is done with elected representatives. Instead, democracies recruit bureaucrats according to specific criteria, and give them secure tenure.
One system that has gradually been superseded is the absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy, with its corollary of dynastic rule, was the most prevalent form of government through history. Now, it only exists in a few places such as West Asia. In the United Kingdom, Japan, Holland, Scandinavia and other monarchies, the titular rulers perform ceremonial roles.
Most monarchies followed the same historical arc. Somebody seized power and passed on the power to his or her (usually his) descendants, who ruled until such time as proved incompetent and replaced by somebody else who seized power. The children of monarchs were taught how to govern by the best tutors available. History has its share of absolute monarchs who delivered governance.
Applying Pascal's logic, if merit doesn't matter, it doesn't matter who governs. One may as well choose a member of a dynasty. If merit does matter, members of a dynasty have received special training, which makes it more likely they will deliver good governance. On balance, therefore, dynastic rule with regular reviews is more likely to deliver good governance than non-dynastic rule. Indian history suggests that most voters believe in Pascal's logic.