Why is the aristocratic system not the alternative system to the democratic system, especially since this system did not take up sufficient space in government?
Democracy abhors restraint, so freedom for individuals to do as they wish is the bedrock.
In the entire world, there is no democratic system in the true sense of the word, because a certain system in one country may be considered a democratic system, but in another country this concept differs. Therefore, we say that democracy is the rule of the people themselves, that is, they assign an agent on their behalf to rule and take away rule from them at any time they want that.
In response to the main question, I would say yes. The quality of democracy still needs to be improved, but it appears to be the best way humans have come up with to alleviate the need for an irresistible absolute (Honig, 1991). I would say aristocratic systems involve irresistible absolutes in politics that lead to inherent unfairness in decision-making.
Honig, B. (1991). Declarations of Independence: Arendt and Derrida on the Problem of Founding a Republic. The American Political Science Review, 85(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962880
All political systems need must make compromises and accommodations to the reality one is confronted with in order to get a working system. All politics is ultimately the art of the possible and those who demand the bringing into being the "impossible" or the imagined only sets themselves and those who will be governed by such a system to tragedy.