In one sense representative democracy is mob rule scaled up, but yeah this is mob rule scaled way down then applied to everyone else without representation.

(“democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." etc)

This wasn't to "impose rule". It was only to select an interim leader who will oversee elections. They've gone for a 73-year-old former chief justice who is famous for being steadfastly anti-corruption.

It was an open discord server that anyone sufficiently motivated with an internet connection could join. So not representative of everyone, but obviously more democratic than if the military had just appointed someone by themselves

> "This wasn't to "impose rule". It was only to select an interim leader"

They are imposing on a country who didn't vote for it a leader who will rule them.

> "It was an open discord server that anyone sufficiently motivated with an internet connection could join."

Only one political viewpoint was represented on that server—the viewpoint of people who agreed with the overthrowing-the-government politics they were organizing on it.

"Motivated" is the wrong question: people with different or opposed viewpoints, would refuse to participate in that teenager internet poll, because they would not identify it as a legitimate election. (And they'd be 100% right).

No one was made leader by the discord server. They made a suggestion, but it's only because that suggestion was accepted by the military leadership, who were de facto in control of the country, that she's been made prime minister.

Obviously, she will lose legitimacy as an interim leader if she doesn't swiftly organise free and fair elections for a legitimate prime minister. The fact that she's acceptable both to the young protestors and to the military leadership suggests she's a safe pair of hands for this role.

What outcome would you have preferred to see, given the circumstances?