How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.

"Democracy" doesn't mean "they do what you agree with" nor even "they do what's best for their citizen", it means the citizens elects the one they want, even if it's the guy whose policies are so bad he's going to send them backward 20 years.

> How is any of it undemocratic ? If people elect candidates who are anti abortion and pro surveillance, then being democratic means those laws should happen.

See, this is why the US is supposed to be ruled by a constitution, rather than just be a democracy. The constitution says that there are things you can't do, even if you have a majority (unless you have enough of a majority to amend the constitution).

Now, granted, that's been eroded under the last few presidents, with (probably) worse to come under Trump. But this is why it matters that we have a constitution that limits what a president can do.

If people elect candidates who are pro-totalitarian surveillance state and limitation of individual freedoms, then being democratic means those laws should happen as well?

Basically if people elect candidates that want to kill democracy then the democratic thing would be to let it die?

When people in the West talk about "democracy", what they usually really mean is "liberal democracy".

> So the proposal to ban abortions was just a lie?

Yes. I.e. not the proposal itself, but the stories about it being likely to be implemented - yes. The "Black Protest" thing was a media-inspired panic.

> What about the story that Poland is one of the few European countries that want access to encrypted communications?

That is indeed worrying, but I don't see anything different here than happens in many other western countries.

They proposed a ban and backed down on public pressure. That does not seeem anti democracy.