>>>You cannot stop democratic elections simply because you are afraid it will validate a group that you disagree with, even if that group is a terrorist organization. That is the people speaking. If a terrorist organization can win an election, then the existing parties are not representing the people and that is what democracy is all about.
>>
>>That's all well and good, as long as the elections are free and fair:
>>
>>- that there are actually parties other than the terrorist organization you can vote for (i.e. that aren't puppets of the terrorists [or autocrats])
>>
>>- that your entire country is not a puppet of another (Lebanon is a puppet of Syria)
>>
>>- that terrorist representatives aren't "suggesting" to voters that they should vote for them (or else)
>>
>>- that the country has strong support for the rule of law
>>
>>- that the voters understand what democracy is, their rights and responsibilities
>>
>>Hopefully you don't think the Hezbollah and Hamas so-called "democratic" elections are anything like what you and I are used to here in North America ...
>
>It comes down to the point, imho, that democracy does not have absolute primacy. It is better than other political systems but still comes with shortcomings that can be exploited for negative purposes. In other words, it is always possible to design situations when openly inhumane forces can get power through democratic elections. It indicates, imho again, that it is more important to build stronger guarantees for individual freedom that should be less dependent on overall democracy.

Churchill said it well: "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others"