It was a clear majority, of members, which made the decision at the UN General Assembly.
I see that as democratic.
Whether the organisation is truly representative of all countries is another matter.
Perhaps it just represents a majority of those countries?
That should give its decisions some weight anyway?
I think that it is better that they exist, than not.

I need to add here that I read other contributor's responses carefully.
In most cases, I can see a valid alternative point of view.
I learn a lot, and often take new ideas on board.

The general assembly votes are traded for influence with the security councils permanent and non-permanent members. Even in Australia's representative democracy promises are not kept- let alone at the international level where much more is at stake.

In a sense democratic principles can be "good" but pragmatically the good is often not achieved- many believe that democracy gives the impression of fairness without the reality. Often the people don't know what is good for themselves so they'll never get it. In many ways the good of the people is thwarted. The poor are poor because they are poor.

If there were less people in the world things would be better for everyone- population density per surface area- cultures stay in their own territory- supply and demand- otherwise cultures will fight for surface dominance till there is nothing left- we are still trying to solve the cultural surface area problems highlighted in Plato's Republic- but that is what the nihilist socialists want- nothingness- and the death that comes with it.