BTW do you think that the American founders would consider the UK a democracy? Or the revolutionaries of France?
I don't personally consider the system the American founders created a particularly good democracy, so their opinions matter little to me. They basically just created a new House of Lords which elected a king rather than having an inherited one. They even copied a lot of our shitty practices.
Not familiar with the various types of democracy the French tried. I think they mostly made the same mistakes America did, and they had recurring problems with their execution of democracy, one of those problems being the executions.
My general guidelines for a basic democracy are;
1) All taxpayers can vote for the legislative body.
2) Only the legislative body can alter the existing body of law.
That's more or less it. Doesn't matter if the executive is a king, president or a magic 8-ball, or if the judiciary is appointed, elected or once again a magic 8-ball. Hell, there doesn't even need to be an executive or judicial branch if the government has been structured without one.* Also doesn't need to be a second chamber.
One representative, elected by the taxpayers, non-advisory, legislative body is the sole requirement to count as a democracy. A direct democracy would count as well of course. As long as any other parts of the government can only advise that a piece of legislation should be amended or delayed, it is a democracy.
A country does not stop being a democracy when it has rules like 'felons can't hold office,' or it stops being a democracy when there are no candidates at all. A vote for different policies under a forever dictator is still a vote, and there are plenty of levels of Flawed Democracy between Pure Democracy and No Democracy.
For reference, the UK defines itself as a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. It's a fairly common structure for the European countries that expanded the franchise without having to overthrow their monarchs first. All real power in the UK lies in the House of Commons and its Prime Minister, which serve as the legislative body and de facto executive. The House of Lords (mostly lifetime appointments given by the House of Commons, plus a few Anglican priests who have seats because of tradition) can delay and amend, and the King exists as a glorified rubber stamp.
In a way, I think our country might actually be a healthier democracy if the King actually used their powers from time to time, as is they aren't even allowed to voice support or opposition to anything relating to domestic politics. King Charles was an ecological activist when he was still prince, but now he isn't allowed to do that any more because of the tradition of the monarchs being servants to the Prime Ministers government, rather than a superior or even equal party. We basically don't
have an executive branch equivalent because the monarch is so neutered.
The UK is not democratic for so many reasons. An unelected upper house with life peers and the clergy. Wierdly inconsistent devolved powers to Wales, Scotland, and some urban mayors - yet all votes in parliament dominated by the English MP's. FPTP voting. Members-only voting for leaders who default to Prime Minister. Government by tradition/convention. Its more broken than the shitshow that is the USA.
Granted, as one of my only political beliefs is Welsh independence I am so not objective on this one.
As a supporter of Scottish Independance,* I agree those are all things that make it a flawed democracy, but it still is a democracy. We vote for representatives, our laws are designed and passed by those representatives, the unelected parts of the system are subservient to the elected part, the power balance lying towards the English is just a matter of demography, so on and so forth.
We're a long way from being an oligarchy, autocracy, absolute monarchy, or other undemocratic system. We're just kind of a shit democracy. But then, so are quite a few democracies, because they were built on stupid compromises that have since calcified.
*I might be satisified with significant electoral reform. Something closer to straight proportional would be more to my taste, if not just straight proportional. Most of my issues with the UK come down to periods of mismanagement and the de facto two party system, which I think would be more easily gotten rid of in an independant Scotland.