The difference is similar to iterated vs non-iterated prisoners' dilemmas.
In an iterated prisoners' dilemma, the optimum choice is cooperation, for any non-pathological set of weights (i.e. as soon as you gain even a minimal amount in the both-sides-cooperate scenario, the long-term gains over multiple iterations will exceed the short-term winnings of one defection, after which the other player is expected to defect as well).
Democratic societies understand that cooperation and compromise are required for long-term prosperity and stability, and are seeking compromise solutions that a majority can agree on. A very good example of this in action would be the "indicative votes" process the British House of Commons used to determine which was the best way forward: a multitude of proposals on a broad spectrum, and yes/no votes on each of them to arrive at a ranking from most to least preferable.
This works well when there are no clear and stable majorities, and voters are aware of that -- respecting other, even minority groups' concerns is self-serving as well, as the next vote could see oneself in the minority, and you'd rely on others to include your position in the compromise.
It breaks down if either a group becomes or believes to be a stable majority (removing the iterative aspect), or the proposals put forward do not include any compromise positions.
In a parliamentary democracy, the final yes/no vote is supposed to be a vote on a compromise position reached in a subcommittee earlier, so this part of the process is hidden rather than omitted.
For the general public to do yes/no votes as in Switzerland, the entire compromise finding process (which includes estimation of outcome) needs to happen publicly, so voters can make an informed choice, and voters need to understand that voting for an extreme position may lose them the support of other citizens in the next vote, should an extreme position in the other direction be proposed.
Ochlocracy is the breakdown of democratic processes: every vote is treated in isolation as it has (or as if it had) no influence on future votes, so there is no incentive to seek compromise.