Maybe 13th century England was not supposed to be a government of the people, but arguably all governments claim and have always claimed to be for the people.

Not really. Kings and emperors might have had a moral duty towards the people, but that is hardly equivalent to them "serving" the people or governing "for" the people. Then there are colonies like the Belgian Congo and some Spanish possessions in the Americas, which were very explicitly run for the benefit of the respective European crown, not their inhabitants. Theocracies have generally been about pleasing God, not the people, with the underlying assumption that God's plan is definitionally the best for the people and that the priest class has unquestionable knowledge of such plan. There are probably even more examples.

Governments explicitly "on behalf of the people" are more or less an historical rarity, even if all governments have needed to keep people below the successful armed revolt threshold as a practical matter.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. We don't really have many even nominal principalities these days, so it's hard to imagine a state where both the people and the government are expected to serve the sovereign as a matter of course. But republicanism is more the outlier, historically, even if it enjoys a lot of contemporary success (whether in practice or in theory, is a matter of some debate, but nonetheless...).

I'm sure the people did wish for it, but not being able to afford armor or horses their voices where not heard.

You're ignoring the desires of the people simply because they didn't have the political leverage to gain them.

No. I am not. I am just saying that they weren't the defining factor in the decision back then, and they don't seem to be the deciding factor in the decision now (but that might come down to bias in which segment of "the people" I hear from the most).

I am saying that powerful interest groups can, occasionally, half-by-accident, represent the best interests of the powerless. We probably shouldn't rely on them to do so, and it is not the ideal state of affairs, but it can happen.

I think it was either this study [1] or another more recently that discussed how the only times our democracy/republic represents average people's interests is when those interests align with those of more powerful groups. Virtually every time they did not align, the government did not support the average person's interests.

Thus, furthering lazaroclapp's point that sometimes there are special interests (the church, companies, nobles/rich people) that are aligned with average people. That is beneficial for society, but it in no way is a solution to the problem. We need to actually restructure our government so it is not an oligopoly.

[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...