The following definitions of democracy are commonly understood and accepted
Government by the people especially: rule of the majority
A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
All that sounds very straight forward and who would argue against that well if you watched any TV in the UK or picked up a so called News Paper then you might have been under the misimpression that we have a one state controlled media promoted through TV and written publications all singing from the same hymn sheet.
A picture of the UK has been attempted to be painted this week of a county full of royalist worshipping citizens whom need to be reminded every 15 minutes through news bulletins, and documentary dramas that we have a monarchy they are very wise and superior to us mere mortals, intellectually, spiritually and genetically. There will be no talk of the future of the monarchy in anyway of whether we want, need or even should have one moving forward. If you are not crying at your TV because someone you have never met and never loved has died, then there is something wrong with you. It’s all quite an odd state of reality really.
The British Royal Family is deeply part of the political fabric even though the monarch is claimed to be above politics is still a deeply political position. The head of the machine of the states is our monarch and the tentacles of the state and our poorly unevenly handed media went into overdrive in the last week showing just how important to the system the promotion of the status quo is within the UK and chance of change or how such changes might take place in order to make our unwritten constitution and the construction of how our state works and to whom it works for are very remote.
Are we merely born into a system where the blood line of a head of state is more important than the blood line of any and all other citizens born with in it? If the answer to this question is absolutely yes, then this system is very much archaic and needs much needed reform which may never come.
We have a house of lords with some peers appointed from state supporters (none elected though the ballet box and some life long peers). They are responsible for keeping an eye on our political laws and ensuring due process is undertaking in parliament.
There are many who ridicule democratic due diligence, process and democratic political power. The reasons for these are often complicated and not easy to understand or even see. But most notably if you are not in favour of democratic due diligence, process or democratic political power it is because you have an invested interest and already receive power from an alternative form of government within which the ordinary man or woman does not have such power or privilege from.