I'm sorry bofin, but I don't accept your dictionary here. If we are to define democracy I would much rather turn to Robert A Dahl, who has become widely recogniced as the authority when it comes to defining democracy (even Huntington acknowledges Dahls definition, even if they don't agree on much else).

Dahl makes a destinction between "democracy", which he considers an unattainable ideal, and "polyarchy", which is as close as the real world can get to democracy (If Intellgod was around he could explain this in a lot more detail, but I guess you will have to do with me). Dahl lists seven conditions that must be met in order for a state to be considered a polyarchy:

1) Elected officials - control of government decicions about policies must be made by elected officials.
2) Elections must be fair and free.
3) Suffrage must be inclusive - that is almost all adults must be allowed to vote (the exception being for instance those to mentally disabeled to understand what an election is).
4) Practially all adults must have a right to run for office (age limitations may apply, but not others).
5) People must have freedom to express their political views, without fearing oppression.
6) Alternative sources of information should be available, and protected by law.
7) People have the freedom to form independent associations and political parties.

Now Dahl does not list majority rule here, but it is quite obvious that while the majority does decide which actions to take they cannot decide to limit the rights of the opposition without moving away from the state of polyarchy - and they cannot decide on genocide of a minority without violating the rights of that minority.

qanatoli