Again, this is where you’re running into problems. You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. The DPRK has “democratic” in the name, but so what? Even in less blatant departures from the spirit of the thing, democracy in practice takes many forms. No one (I hope) thinks they live in an Athenian democracy, so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Usually it’s a buzzword interchangeable with “free society” which is another buzzword.
For example, the U.S. styles itself as the world’s leading democracy, but that’s branding again. In reality it is nominally a federated system of indirect representative republics. The U.K. also considers itself a leading democracy, but in practice we’re a constitutional monarchy where power mostly rests in a parliamentary system and civil service.
In short, talking only in terms of buzzwords means that we can project whatever desires we want on “democracy” or “freedom” when the reality is complex.
I have no idea how you got that idea considering I just wrote that the systems we call democracies may not be all that democratic in reality.
If this boils down to Europe not being your idea of democratic now, and for the entirety of its history, then you’re making no point at all.
Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that.
In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.