It's not about being "OK" - democracy should be a neutral (technical) term that describes how the government is, in effect, chosen. I've already indirectly defined democracy (crudely) as "[...] that a sizeable part of the population can have a say in who controls the country".
The greater the part of the population can have a say, the more democratic. Rigged votes are not democratic because they bar the population from having a say. Oppressing political opposition is not democratic since it limits the choice.
Once moral judgements are made part of what constitutes a democracy (like requiring 'human rights'), the definition will likely become fleeting and change according to common opinions on how a state should be run.
Just stop reading all kinds of weird things between the lines.Start by making a coherent point other than "let's wait for magic to happen, and everything will be OK".
Bookmarks