Except not really. The Senate didn't represent the interests of the vast majority of worlds in the Republic. It represented the interests of the handful that managed to get Senators (generally the most powerful of a given Sector). The Republic nominally had around a million full member worlds, it had a few thousand Senators. And if those Senators were "elected" by the member worlds of a Sector then it appears that it was usually a North Korean style election because the same worlds kept winning for literally thousands of years straight and they always tended to be the most powerful world in the Sector.
To me, this comes across as just you re-iterating a point I had already refuted. But it seems we have different premises (see below), so you probably don't consider the point "refuted". Nevertheless, I have answered it, and you do not engage with my point at all.
To re-iterate: the Republic is a confederation. How the members elect or appoint their representatives is
their concern. Now, you evidently disagree with that idea, but that's still the way it is. Insofar as the central government is concerned with "being a democracy" it is limited to its
own internal functioning. The Republic literally
cannot compel its members to be democratic, or to select representatives in a prescribed manner. The Republic being unable to do this is a
core tenet of the Republic, without which it
would not have existed (because too many members would have just refused to join).
You are laying a charge at the feet of the Senate and the governing class of Coruscant, when in fact this is something they cannot
and are not supposed to control.
So when you accuse them of being "undemocratic", their entirely reasonable response could be: "
We are exactly as democratic as we can be. We have no control over local elections and appointments, but we make sure that the decisions of the central representative body are made in a democratic manner. This is the full extent of our authority."
No, the government that governs best is the one that only governs as much as it has to.
That's how you end up with a Palpatine in charge. Most governments automatically decide that every new power is "necessary", and that's how a famous confederation whose independence was rooted in a tax rebellion has ended up governed by a top-heavy bureaucratic state that employs the largest, most over-funded military apparatus in human history, must suffer a gaggle of unacountable three-letter agencies, and which is now taxed by its own ruling elite to a
far greater extent than it ever was by any king across the ocean. I refer, of course, to that tragically
deceased republic -- the USA.
The Galactic Republic, all things considered, held up much better. It stayed confederal for a very long time. It had peace for a very long time. Naturally, we are then talking of a fictional polity. But in my view, this situation of "confederal success" is not at all unrealistic: a ruling class that genuinely subscribes to the maxim I proposed
will produce such results.
A ruling class that subscribes to
your maxim, on the other hand, produces only a constant degeneration. A failure is baked into it.
Seeing as the New Republic (any canon) collapsed within a generation into another galaxy spanning war, they really can't be said to be suited to governing the galaxy.
I don't really care about Disney's fanfic universe. I'll hapily grant that
everyone living in that canon is an utter imbecile.
As far as the original continuity is concerned: we have there a fledgling new government, still rebuilding in the aftermath of 25 years of highly destructive despotism and the bloody civil war that was needed to overthrow the centralist tyranny. This new-born system is then faced with an unprecedented extra-galactic invasion, and against all odds manages to beat off the invaders. That's more hits than most would be able to take, you know.
And seeing as they are the same people who oversaw Palpatine's rise to power, they can't be said to have ever been particularly suitable.
The "confederalists", as it were, presided over a thousand years of galactic peace. If you want to lay Palpatine's ascent at their feet (culminating in 25 bad years) you must also credit them with their successes (1000 good years). Which carries the greater weight, would you say?
In fact, as I've outlined in a previous post: the Old Republic lasted for 25 millennia, of which -- at most -- 2000 years can be qualified as "a seriously bad time" for the galaxy. And practically all the "bad times" were directly caused by people imposing (or trying to impose) more centralism. The c. 23 millennia that were peaceful and stable were -- without exception -- times of ardent decentralism.
So, in essence, the debate is long over, and the decentralists have won. Confederalism brings peace and stability, anything else brings tyranny and/or war.