> "liberal" democracy

I see this as a matter of terminology, not meaning. Here's what I know:

I've seen "constitutional democracy" used by experts, though not often enough to say it's a term of art in that field. Certainly I've seen experts say that the basic formula = (democracy) + (constitution that protects minority rights and limits government).

And certainly "liberal democracy" also is used to describe that form of government. Those liberal principles are enshrined in the constitutions; I don't know if that defines "liberal democracy".

> Any dictator can write a constitution and derive authority from it.

That would omit an essential component of the 'formula', democracy.

I think you're right, at least in an academic sense. I just associate "minority rights" with "liberal" by applying the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever unless there is a (relatively) objectively justifiable reason to do otherwise. So enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it.

> enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it

Very interesting way to think about it. Thanks.