They are using the word democracy in the colloquial sense. If you read the article it’s clear they are talking about a growing disconnect between policy makers’ decisions and the needs/wants of the public. Just saying, “never has been one” isn’t helpful.
Why not read the article and engage with the idea of democracy in the sense it's being used? Anyone could have written this comment and I don't see what it adds to the discussion.
Well then it doesn't really seem to answer the argument that a "representative democracy" and "direct democracy" can plausibly be classified as two forms of democracy.