>SNIP
>>The definition I actually work from is borrowed from Karl Popper: democracy is a form of government that may change itself non-violently. Under this defintion, which I think is pretty good, a republic can be seen as a type of democracy.
>
>I disagree. That is a very loose definition and could also hold true for an autocracy. As long as the leader chooses his successor personally and passes control to his successor, then it is a government that changed itself nonviolently also.

By "change" itself I mean the structure of the government, not just the personnel.

>I also do not believe that is an 'accepted' definition for a democracy.

I agree with this, but if you consider the generality of the defintion for a moment, and consider your following statement:

>A more accurate definition should be created based on historical events and democratic principles derived over the years.

I think you might find that Popper has come up with a rather accurate definition based on democractic principles and centuries of their use.