No it wouldn't, because the U.S. isn't a pure democracy. It's a constitutional democracy, where the founders created a system of anti-democratic "rights" mainly to protect the integrity of the political process itself, and to protect wealthy landowners from the masses. The fact that the system has been used to good effect doesn't make it any less "anti-democratic."
I'm not advocating for or against democracy versus philosopher kings. I'm pointing out that OP's assertion is backward--he wants less democracy, not more. If you want to protect racial or religious minorities, etc., you need to take power away from the public and put it in the hands of philosopher kings. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. But in all events, you're making the system less "democratic." Conversely, Bangladesh or Egypt aren't less "democratic" because the people are free to vote to impose Islamic values upon themselves.
I'm not advocating for or against democracy versus philosopher kings. I'm pointing out that OP's assertion is backward--he wants less democracy, not more. If you want to protect racial or religious minorities, etc., you need to take power away from the public and put it in the hands of philosopher kings. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. But in all events, you're making the system less "democratic." Conversely, Bangladesh or Egypt aren't less "democratic" because the people are free to vote to impose Islamic values upon themselves.