Aristotle did not straightforwardly favor democracy in the way we use the word today — in fact, he was wary of it.

In Politics, he distinguishes between "correct" constitutions (which aim at the common good) and "deviant" constitutions (which aim at the advantage of the rulers). For him:

Correct constitutions

• Monarchy (rule by one for the common good)

• Aristocracy (rule by the best for the common good)

• Polity (a mixed form of rule by the many for the common good)

Deviant constitutions

• Tyranny (rule by one for personal benefit)

• Oligarchy (rule by the few for their own benefit)

• Democracy (rule by the many poor for their own benefit)

In Aristotle’s taxonomy, what Athenians called "democracy" was usually a deviant form of government, because it tended toward the poor ruling in their own interest, not the common good. The constitution he most approves of is polity — a kind of mixed government that blends elements of oligarchy and democracy, with a strong middle class to stabilize it.

So:

• Favourable to democracy? No, if “democracy” means direct majority rule by the poor as a class.

• Favourable to a mixed constitution with democratic elements? Yes — he saw that as the most stable and just in practice.

If you want, I can lay out exact passages from Politics that show his reasoning and why later thinkers misread him as pro-democracy.