Democracy is not simply the rule of majority. There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
This has may have led to a perception from Americans that constitutions ought to be difficult to amend by their nature, and that is an essential feature of republicanism, since the US Constitution is practically set in stone-hence the immense power of the US Supreme Court justices. In fact, most countries do make it considerably easier to change their constitutions (with a straightforward super-majority, in most cases), and to adapt to the needs of the people. The idea of an unbreakable and sacred tyranny of people who are long dead (The Founders) is something unique to the US, among constitutional democracies.The arguments about things being needing to be set in stone confuse cause and effect.
*http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...
There have been lots of amendments to the US constitution, and I expect if a solid majority of people wanted something changed, it would not be hard to pass another. This could easily happen if one major party strongly supported something and the other party was merely split.
But in recent decades it has been easier to change the constitution by the back door through getting judgest to give creative interpretations.
Most systems route around the problem by requiring "supermajorities", or majorities with different qualifications, to amend the most criticals bits (constitutions and the likes) or even to progress regular legislation in some cases ("filibustering"). But the problem is still there. If representatives of a constitutional democracy voted to transform it into an absolutist hereditary monarchy, following all necessary constitutional rules, would that be legitimate?
What we often take for granted, in constitutional sciences, is a set of rules that is often less than 100 years old, and which was achieved with much bloodshed. We risk re-learning painful lessons.
Yes, it is: it's the rule of the demos — the mob.
> There are certain fundamental aspects of democracy that are sacrilege and can not be broken down even if 99/100 citizens want it.
Those are the fundamental aspects of a republic, not of a democracy.
I blame Woodrow Wilson and all his nonsense about making the world safe for democracy. I don't actually care about whether I live in a democracy or not: I want to live in a republic, where the fundamental liberties of even the smallest minorities are secured from even the great howling mob.
I was indeed referring to a republic where majority of modern democracies operate. I assumed given the context of the discussion this was obvious. Turns out, that it is not.