Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Isn't that like saying democracy is

Why weren't there more democratic free market regimes in developing countries? Democracy is susceptible to populist acts. Isn't that like saying democracy is susceptible to democracy? Let's use the word "market supportive" to describe governments that support and enable property rights and contract law ( the essence of a free market). How many countries became more "market supportive" as a democracy? Britain, the U.S., Germany, Austria, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong - these countries all either developed their market oriented legal systems as authoritarian states or they inherited their system from a colonial ruler. I can think of numerous examples of democracies ( or failed attempts at democracy) moving in a less market supportive direction. Compare Britain 1884 ( the year of the Reform Act granting universal male suffrage ) to Britain 1950. Germany 1871 to Germany 1935. Russia under monarchy to Russia under the populist Bolshevik revolutionary government. Or Argentina in the first half of the 20th century to Argentina in the second half the century. France under any of the monarchies to France under any of the succeeding republics. India under the Raj to India post-Raj. Zimbabwe pre-universal suffrage, to Zimbabwe after universal suffrage. The only counter examples I can think of are the former Soviet republics. However, that is not really fair, since 1) it would be impossible to be more anti-property than the Soviet system and 2) the Soviet system arose as a result of a populist revolution. Ireland might be another example, though I haven't studied its history enough.