Why do some argue that direct democracy is simply a way for the wealthy and businesses to get their own policies passed?

At present, when democracy is spoken of as a form of social organization, it is generally understood as the most fair for the majority, so that in practice it should be the most beneficial for a society, and in this way progress could be made. Towards a better state. But what happens in countries where there is no real democracy as it is in Cuba, China, as well as some Arab countries where the form of government is rather authoritarian? Probably in those nations the idea of how to achieve that "it is better for the people" is different from what is thought in most countries today, or in the case of ancient Greece where democracy was considered one of the worst systems of government. That is why, given that Chile is currently a democratic country, in theory, it is necessary to analyze the true strengths and weaknesses of this way of governing as well as consider the question of really being in a democratic society.