There are two major answers.
The first is the original answer of people like john Locke. They believed that every individual started with some basic, inviolable rights that either arose from human nature itself or were given to them by God, that the rights of groups were really no more than the rights of the individuals in those groups, that groups could only have a right to control others where individuals had that right. So, if I have no individual right to force people with views different from my own to be quiet, then no group had a right to do this, even if it was one person against the entire rest of the world.
The other answer is most famously associated with John Stuart Mill and his book On Liberty. It also figures significantly in the social thought of Karl Popper and his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. It is that a society can only keep from developing the wrong ideas by allowing its ideas to be constantly challenged by an adversarial process.
Tutelary (or guarded or protected) democracy is a type of diminished democracy in which the elected government has no effective power to govern and is in need of protection. Examples might be Iraq or Afghanistan though I'm not sure if one can speak of democracy in these cases.
In a democracy, certain fundamental political rights are typically protected and cannot be abolished, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceful assembly. These rights are essential for a functioning democracy as they allow for diverse perspectives, public discourse, and accountability of those in power.
People may risk their lives for democracy because they believe in the principles of freedom, equality, and participation in decision-making processes. They may see democracy as a way to ensure their rights are protected, hold leaders accountable, and have a say in governing their own lives and communities. Additionally, some individuals are willing to sacrifice for democracy because they see it as a means to create a more just and inclusive society for future generations.
The three types of representative democracy are parliamentary democracy, presidential democracy, and mixed democracy. In parliamentary democracy, the executive branch is drawn from the legislative branch. In presidential democracy, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch. Mixed democracy combines elements of both parliamentary and presidential systems.
The three forms of democracy are direct democracy, representative democracy, and parliamentary democracy. In direct democracy, citizens directly participate in decision-making. In representative democracy, citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. In parliamentary democracy, the executive branch is accountable to the legislature.
honesty
In a dictatorship, only one person's opinion matters. In a democracy, multiple people's opinions matter. As a result, you are more likely to have disagreement in a democracy than a dictatorship. This disagreement is usually termed as "gridlock" by those who are annoyed by it.
democracy is protected by the government and the laws of the country that you are in and live in
The rights of the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority
minority
The war was to protect democracy- APEX
minority
Minority... for Novanet
representative democrazy
Citizens disagreeing is not necessarily a 'problem' in a democracy: it is the basis and essence of a democracy to entertain all views. The assumption is that these disagreements are civil and are subjects for discussion. However, when citizens in disagreement resort to violence or prejudice and the disagreements take action over dialog, then the result can be a problem for any democracy.
Democracy is a political government, carried out by a) directly by the peole, or b) by a representitive of the people. 2 Importan features of democracy: 1) Equality before the law 2) Freedom and rights are protected by court
Individual freedoms are best protected by state governments