> Matthias: Are you using "democracy" here in the sense that you personally
> defined it
> upthread, or in the sense that most people use it?
>
> [WS:] So what exactly is that sense, and how do you know that most people
> use it? Most people where, in the US, EU, worldwide? Please do tell.
>
> PS. Lijphart (one of the source I quoted) comes up with a good operational
> definition of democracy - but that definition is not exactly what "most
> people" use. In fact he argues that the US concept of democracy is very
> much different from that in Europe. I may add that "most people" in the US
> use the term "democracy" in the same way they use "god" - something that
> evokes good feelings and is on "our side" but otherwise devoid of any
> specific meaning.
>
> Wojtek
>
I phrased that poorly. I meant whether you were using "democracy" to refer to governmental form (parliaments, elections, &c.) or:
"[WS:] I think we have very different concepts of "democracy." To me, what matters is not conception, but execution. That is, it does not matter how the government comes to power, but how well it provides for individual and collective needs of the great majority of the population. That means that a hereditary monarchy can conceivably be more democratic than an elected parliament."
If it's the latter (i.e. Liphardt's "most people" definition) all you're saying is that people tend to fare better under efficient and consistent administrators than incompetent and corrupt ones, which while not precisely a tautology does seem rather trivial.