I see "democracy" used as a rhetorical term quite a bit, so I'd like to attempt to better define it. In developed nations, such as the US and the UK, I'd define democracy as a representative system of government which allows democratic participation (e.x. voting for representatives and executives) which includes a Constitution that guarantees rights. It may also include institutions such as an electoral college in which popular vote isn't always the deciding factor in an election.

I'd argue that this is different from "pure democracy" or "direct democracy", and that this is a good thing, since such things would effectively be mob rule and allow the presumed majority to take away the rights of the minority (e.x. the majority of white people could decide that the minority of black people lose their rights). The French Reign of Terror might be an example of what direct democracy would look like in action. For that matter, the 2020 capital riot might be another example of what direct democracy would look like in action (e.x. a mob could simply decide by fiat to do what it pleases without any laws or procedures to restrain them).

These are simply my thoughts attempting to summarize what the term "democracy" refers to in contemporary society, since I see the term thrown around a lot without sufficient meaning or context.

Or you can use the standard general definition and recognize that there are different implementations of it, since there are many types.

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or you can use the standard general definition and recognize that there are different implementations of it, since there are many types.

Right. I'm also tempted to argue that there are negative aspects of democracy (e.x. people of questionable information or moral character participating in the political process, and the use of propaganda to influence people's participation, often based on heated emotion and questionable information rather than more reasonable thought), though on the whole modern democracies are a preferable system to totalitarian forms of government, for example.

I'd assert that democratic participation, such as in American democracy, is one of the checks and balances against the consolidation of power in the hands of a specific elite (e.x. laws are made by representatives, but they have the ability to be voted out of power if their actions don't appear to mass society).

Edited September 15, 20241 yr by Night FM

7 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I'm also tempted to argue that there are negative aspects of democracy

The positive or negative aspects are separate from what it is.

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'd define democracy as a representative system of government which allows democratic participation (e.x. voting for representatives and executives) which includes a Constitution that guarantees rights

We already have a word for this: Constitutional Republic 

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

I'd argue that this is different from "pure democracy" or "direct democracy"

And you’d be correct 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy