ngtm1r wrote:I hate to say it, aldo, but what you say is irrevelant to your conclusion. It'd still be democracy in action, regardless of what was actually voted in, as it was still done by those who were democratically elected and engaged in voting on it.
The government of Athens during Hellenic times is considered a democracy too, you know. (Or for a closer examples with representive democracies, Senatorial Rome, or closer yet, the United States before 1865.) And they would certainly flunk most of the criteria you seem to be using. The rights of the individual and democracy do not necessarily go hand in hand. We like to think they should, but that's not really the case. Democracy is only one right, that to vote as you choose. Others might reinforce it, but they are not essential to it.
Actually, the root definition of a democracy is essentially a government ruled by (the elected representatives of) the people; if a a democratically elected government votes to destroy a/the fundamental aspect preserving democratic freedoms (such as basic human rights, which affect both our ability to vote freely and also our ability to vote without being unduly/unfairly coerced).
Democracy, within the modern context, can be defined by the combinations of safeguards upon individual rights; a decision which destroys those individual rights is thus undemocratic (un being the negative; I think a decision which removes the right of the people to rule - from the greek
demos kratos - would be considered undemocratic).
Additionally, the MPs elected are acting representatives; whilst their voting decisions can be tempered by current public opinion, their election is - or rather should be - on the basis of a spectrum of policies defined at the time of election (specifically within the manifesto). It's very easy to turn the public one way or the other (for example, the YouGov poll claiming to give 72% public support for 90 day detention was laid in with leading questions which essentially acted to justify 'yes' for the very last question and thus bias the poll; alternatively, just look at the newspaper coverage from the likes of the Sun*), so the only unequivocal answer we can claim to have is based on election results and the general miasma policies of said elected parties. Thus I'd say the general principle of democratic representatives, when voting, has to be of conscience and preserving democracy, unless your actual manifesto is an undemocratic one (i.e. facist).
*the Sun posted a picture of an injured 7/7 victim (a media professor) taken at the time, under the massive headline 'betrayed'. This guy later contacted the media and said that he totally disagreed with the Suns statement, was against 90 day detention, and if they wanted to put words in his mouth they should have been 'not in my name, Blair'. When you have large scale newspapers like the Sun blatantly lying and spinning to make political statements like this, I'd say it makes the issue of conscience over pandering to public opinion even more important.
. Seriously though this happens every time a prime minister loses an important vote. It's pathetic playground politics, a load of grown men going "You lost! Nah nah, na nah nah!". No wonder the public are apathetic about politics.