I have no problem recognizing multiple flavours and definitions of “democracy”, including one were there was no legislature or courts and every issue was put to majority vote. “How much should John pay in taxes? Is Dave guilty of that murder?”
But there has to be a test of sorts if one is going to say a country is no longer a functioning democracy, i.e. establishing what “functional democracy” characteristics a country once had but has now lost. Without context, it’s a meaningless comment.
I happily admit my own bias in thinking a functioning democracy needs stable independent courts that apply laws evenhandedly. I figure without that, punishments are doled out capriciously by the executive, the legislature gets quickly cowed into compliance, and functionally democratic you ain’t.
A common definition used in the political science and economics literature is that of the minimalist democracy - Any system of governance where there is a competitive election of leadership.
And, yes, that does matter. Just having something like a stable and continuous and more-or-less-popular government since 1979 gives Iran a certain regional prestige that all its neighbors lack (not counting Israel, which is always a special case in discussions of the MENA, and such prestige as it has there is both unique and compromised). And we can’t afford to forget that.
There are several reasons why popular voting may lead to ineffective or undemocratic outcomes. Consider Thailand (though many U.S. commentators miss the point).
When an armed faction, which is more powerful than your own army, is capable of declaring and fighting wars against neighboring countries with impunity, then you’re not a nation at all, democratic or otherwise. You’re just land with some people on it.
I think we’re getting caught up in semantics. I see the outcome of any popular vote as a democratic outcome. You raise the hypothetical for people voting to change their system of government to something other than a democracy(Has this ever happened?). I still think of it as a democratic outcome, even though the outcome means you no longer have a democracy.
I’m wondering if we’re confusing “Democracy” with a “Republic”. A Republic is governance by the people as opposed to governance by the elite. So a Democracy is a sunset of the various Republic forms. The United States is a Representative Democracy, the people themselves don’t vote on every little issue (although lately neither do our elected representatives [grin]).
However, using the working definition on this thread, I’d say a functioning democracy is one where the Nation-State’s Chief Executive is an elected position in some fashion, rather than inherited or gained through force of arms. I’ll give Saudi Arabia as an example of a non-democracy, they’re a Kingdom, Israel as a functioning democracy and Egypt as a (hopefully) transitional example.
The NSA, even though No Such Agency exists, is a military operation, hellbent to destroy our enemies that Congress, and Congress alone, designates. I’d be more offended if they refused the direct order of Congress.
Maybe we need some other word for what people are striving to describe. Democracy does mean rule by the majority and that can be quite unedifying. Liberal is too much of a ‘scare’ word in much of the US but maybe what we are looking at is a system where the majority have a broad say over how the state should be governed, but are constrained by principles of individual and group rights which cannot be easily altered. Maybe a Constitutional Democracy is what we should be aiming at:
Rule of Law
Broad Franchise
Regular Fair Elections uninfluenced by monied or authoritarian intervention
Representatives not mandated by their electorate.
Switzerland has a direct democracy with binding referendums. They have just as a people decided to renege on a Treaty agreement that may destroy their social and financial structure- should such risks be taken by a stste just because people do not understand the consequences
Was it a democracy?