i always thought of a democracy as a "will of the people". a majority rule. that all there is to it. however, individual rights and liberties can get mangled by democracy for sure, that is the purpose of the various checks and balances that the we (the US) have put into place.
likewise we have found the free market to require regulation lest it be too volatile. i'm sure some would object to this comparison, but it seems that regulation h as been the universal answer to market malfunction.
i haven't paid a lot of attention to the Hamas "democratic" situation, but I don't doubt that the majority of those particular people would vote for the principles that Hamas eschews. so what do you do when a people vote tyranny onto themselves? isn't that like voting for a Democrat? or perhaps it is like euthanasia, are we going to deny them the right to vote tyranny unto themselves?
anyway, it is an interesting discussion, far more interesting that democracy vs. communism vs. facism etc. which are discussions that are all played out IMO. how democratic does democracy have to be to be "right"? obviously the founders here didn't see the "will of the people" a complete democracy without checks and balances and statement of basic individual rights.
it is something that we see here where we are a Christian majority, and we see the Christians attempt to pass laws to support their beliefs.