And if you discount supposed democracies that have a form of apartheid, ie. a portion of the population excluded by law from participation (and thus from effective citizenship), you can at least halve that number. Even an extremely moderate islamic country like Morocco has legal apartheid for non-muslims, even if a majority of the population supports it. Do such countries have citizens? I think it's at best 50% true, and the truth is that Morocco is probably the best and most open islamic society (this, despite the fact that I do believe the large majority of muslims, including in Morocco, do NOT want apartheid anymore, but let's just say extremists don't accept majority votes and kill, so ...). Pakistan is still "a democracy", but has extreme apartheid, and regular attacks against minorities (whether you mean Christians or Afghans by minority)
In the vast majority of human history democracies were a rounding error. And it may go back down. At this point, is there really any reason to consider countries Russia, or Egypt, democracies? You have to count both to get to 21%. You'll find you need to count quite a few "democracies with very significant defects" like Pakistan and Russia as normal democracies to get above 10% of the human population.
Btw: consumer is still a very positive word. It still means to me that the country is dependent on the approval of the citizens. The difference is what is measured: heads ... or dollar bills. But approval is what really matters. The majority of Russians, Egyptians (and frankly even Moroccans) do not approve of the basic structure of the state they live in. Either they can't change it or they think changing would be a disaster and status-quo is good enough.
If the people are just "consumers" and not "citizens", that's too passive. They're not involved with keeping the society running. That way lies collapse, sooner or later.
If the people are just "citizens" and not "consumers", that's all duty and no enjoying the benefits. That's a society that treats the people as means to an end, not as valuable in their own right.
A balance is needed. The country exists for the people at least as much as the people exist for the country, but the people also have to care for and work for the society.
I am not American
I described a "consumer society" to describe the American economy
methinks the English description "subject" might be a better word to describe individuals
I do not think so.
We have not had an example of a consumer society in a planned economy, that I know of
But the Soviet example is illuminating. They had fabulous infrastructure, built the best rockets, the fastest fighter jets, even had very good super computers.
But they never made a TV with a remote control.
I would love to see a study of consumer appliances in the USSR, but I bet there was a toaster available. One.
China may blaze a new trail and show us something new.
But now they have returned to "Leader for Life" I am expecting them to return to the days of Mao and loose their edge.
Go on China! Prove me wrong!!