While a caring and happy world that ensures maximum liberty of each individual compatible with the life and liberty of others has been the cherished goal of most humanists*, there seems to be an almost universal consensus- without clarity of meaning- on "democracy" being the most desirable social system, through which such a goal should and could be achieved. Thus, I offer below a possible definition of "democracy".

Democracy is a social system ideologically and in practice oriented towards "citizens or members of the society being its major stakeholders with all having equal stakes in it". 

Here is a quote from "Principles of Political Economy" by John Stuart Mill, First Edition, Published in 1848 by John W. Parker, Farnham, Surrey.

"The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves".

It follows as a consequence of this definition that transparent governance is not merely a desirable feature but a pre-requisite for a democratic society.

*Aren't such humanists often referred to as "socialists"?  Perhaps "Inclusivism" is a better description of their world view.