Separation of powers is to ensure, that the majority get's their will. Nothing more, nothing less. It's to prevent someone who once attained the power, to change the laws to stay in power, even though the majority doesn't.

You absolutely have no clue about North Korea then.

Looks like you missed the point. Separation etc is a clutches, patches, whatewher, to make all of it somehow work without falling to civil war everyday. And you see those clutches as basis of whole idea of it. Its just tries to fix unfixable. About "even thought the majority doesnt" - what if it does? True skill in democracy is to do it such way, what it does. And its quite easy, if you do some work. And it best to be done with negative selection (bah again), than positive. Its way more easy to keep enough % of people to support you, and do anything with all others, than constantly trying to pleasure them all. For first generation maybe youll even had to use some force, true, but if its democracy, and 51% want other 49% to be shot, and govt dont do it - it supress the majority of own people, and thus strongly un-democratic. Surely in case 51% 49% its a clear civil war, but usually you need to get rid of smaller %, and while you doing it - you do it from support of people. And after initial hassle you just do a right educational work with kids, and you have all people sincerely support you. No lie, no fraud, no false proposals. Surely you get rid from some very small % of criminals in process, but criminals appears everywhere, you know. And after it you see it from the distance and say "no, its cant be they are all do it under the barrel of the gun" and "you have absolutely no clue about NK". While in fact it same stuff as you have, just your include some illusion what its different, and you believe it. And they have different illusion, and sincerely believe it too. In game terms they do "powergaming" from democracy. You can see its as "not fun" etc, but they act essentially in rules of game, just exploiting it, and revealing what rules are crap. And you are just trying to have a casual fun from game, and dislike it.

If the majority does support the current power owners, they don't have to change laws or any reason to overthrow the separation of powers - in fact, it's a huge part of their legitimation. Those who do meddle / disaprove with separation of powers, are the ones fearing to loose it.

... which is coming from the assumption, that you can do all and everything once you're in charge, even ensuring that it stays that way. Just because 51% voted for you, isn't a vote for you to get rid of the other 49%. That has absolutely nothing to do with democracy but is the principle of "might makes right".

You just admited it. Democracy is about the will of the majority. Exploiting that, isn't democratic anymore. It's the opposite.
Getting elected when there's only one name on the voting list in your district, isn't hard, doesn't come with any legitimation and surely has nothing to do with democracy. That's North Korea, your "true" democracy.

Again, you use a moral values in a wrong way. Democracy is about will of majority. Exploiting it unfair and immoral, but its not "isnt democratic anymore", if enough % of population already support it. NK have only one name in list, true. Because there is no other people who want to be elected. Everyone is happy with it. How come it isnt democratic? Even if there would be some disruptive guy, with bad ideas what the whole stuff should be done other way - he wouldnt get any vote at all, as people already chosed the best possible. "West democracies" do it similar way btw. For example, do you have the options to vote for openly racist party, what clearly ask for immediate eradication of some groups? No, your government prevent you. And maybe this party will win, because it reflects the ideas of enough people? You cant even test it, as you prevent them for appear in ballot. Ok, you do it because you are sure what they cannot bring anything good for a country, will be disruptive etc, and still see it as "democratic" probably. And you say what NK is not democratic enough, just because they think what all other parties will be disruptive in comparison to one they have. Essentially same stuff, meet the rules, but surely we understand what its exploit. Just it more blatant exploit than you are doing. But they both fall into exploits category. And yes, they still cannot be qualify by anything exept democracy. Thats how it work if number of voters are exeeds the number of ones who actually can perfrom the power.

Two reasons for that:
- they don't know better. Brainwashed since birth that NK is the best country in the world, how good, wise and just their great leader is, etc. Separation of powers would have prevented a system like this.
- those who know better, don't DARE. That's a huge difference to don't want. And again, that's what separation of powers is for, to prevent that.

On the last few elections or people initiatives in Switzerland, I wasn't on the winning side. That's something I have to accept. But I don't have to fear being detained (and my whole family based on the three-generation principle in NK) because of that. Why? Free will and separation of powers preventing such exploitations.

Democracy is more than just the will of the majority. It's also about opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. This isn't the case for your definition of a "true democracy", not for Russia and certainly not for North Korea.

... and if you still think I'm the one using moral values the wrong way, please search for "Ahn Myong-chol" a former prison guard of North Korea and read what he has to tell about happenings in your "true democracy".

Oh. Why you think you know better? You are subject of numerous propagainda lies too. Everyone is brainwashed one or other way. They do it blatatly, others do it coverously, but its still same thing, just different amount. If rules are permit brainwash - optimal strategy could be using it at max, why not? You are again mixing civil liberties, rights etc with democracy. You can have perfect civil rights and liberties in a country ruled by some tyrant, who claim what God granted him this right as the only explanation of his power. And you can have extremally bad rights in liberties in a perfectly legitimate democratic country, and enough % of it will be happy with it and support it. All the time you keep them tied for no reason. Its like suppose what every black-coloured car is diesel powered, because you have such car, and every white-coloured is rotor one, because your nebghour have such. They could be black with rotor, and white with diesel, colour and engine type are not really connected. So you somewhy constantly attribute the abundance of civil liberties in Sw and lack of them in NK with "levels of democracy" again and again. Democracy isnt about control of leaders, separation etc, its simply about idea what people who live on the land are the source of decisionmaking there. And not just some guy who claim so for some reason. And those separations and other controls just a measures to fix most blatant possible exploits, but those exploits are in democracy itself. And those control efforts are easily beating with more skilled exploits, up to the time where you can even sincerely believe what there is not exploits working now. So it return back to NK, they are sincerely believe it already, just as you do, Similar control methods could be applied to monarchy (dictatorship if you want), and work too. They are simply non-native to democracy. If you want to talk about control of powers-that-be, then talk about it, and not "democracy", as it completely different stuff.

Former prison guards etc. Again its only about civil rights, not method of decisionmaking by itself. The fact what you suppress opposition other way make you good people, but not more "democratic".

Oh my fu*king God. I can't believe that someone tries to argue that North Korea is democratic. What the hell?!

Of course there is no other people who want to be elected. Last time when someone else wanted to be elected he was executed with freaking mortars. No to mention Kim Jong-un being executed just because he was becoming popular.

Damn, if I would be living in NK, I would beat the shit out of anyone who would say that I have charisma.

Take some colony of reclusive religious extremists living in some rather unaccesible place, where they moved 200 years ago to keep theyr faith clear, and cut the contacts with infidel satanic world. The lived there, grow childrens, taught them the Right way. Now you came to them and say:

"Bah, dudes, why you eat only plain bread, burn wood, have obligatory beatings on mondays, give birth in 14, die from pneumonia, pray 8 hours per day and dont have even horses? We have condoms, iPhones, tomatoes, medicine, anchovies, you can even drive a car, or can marry anyone you like, and not one who that old guy will chose for you! This old guy you call the leader is simply talking a bullshit about rotten sin-engulfed world, surely we have some problems, but you are live really bad compared to us, dont listen to him, and as i heard he recently ordered to stone some girl who felt asleep on a pray, he opress you, get free!"

And they will tell you, "Good sir, its our life, we like it, so please, go away back to your hell, satan-spawn. Nobody are oppressing us, its our father's and our own choice of righteous life. This girl did bad, so it was a right thing to do, its our life and our rules. And we like it, as its a right way".

Thats a democracy too. Real one. Like you or not. So to "save" "oppressed" people from there - you have to suppress theyr legal will first. Thus perfectly deny they any free will and sovereighnity, while trying to granting them that "free will".

So suppressing people to not get in contact with the world outside of your own borders is democratic. Exploitive democracy, but democracy. But when I get in and tell them about the world beyond their borders (something I'd get imprisoned for in NK) I suppress their free will?
If I send some north korean guy newspapers or TV shows (even none political ones), I'll endanger his whole family by north korean law. But I'm the one suppressing him?
.... that's some serious stuff you guys smoke over there.....

It's one thing if they choose to live that way, knowing about the other sides - that's their free will and a democratic decision. There are restrictions to this, otherwise every household could switch their country or form their own, but a democratic decision none the less.
It's a different thing if they aren't allowed to form their own opinion about it, be it through direct violence, under penalization or misinformation / propaganda (yes I'm aware you'd probably declare everything as propaganda). Restricting information to one source only (as in NK) is not democratic, is not separation of powers and the sole reason to do so is, that the guys in power, stay in power.
This. has. nothing. to. do. with. democracy.

It's written so it must be true. ;)

In this example suppression was democratic ofc. I clearly sayd what it was some religious group, what intentionally decided to isolate themselves by theyr own will. The problem here is what they surely wouldnt sent those kids back to outer world, so they could make they own work to get back to the Right way life. Its too complicated and nobody will do it, and its useless, as they are already in the Right life. You will suppress theyr will if you will forcefully try to change theyr life. If you will spread information about sinny stuff there - you could be persecuted by them, right. As it happens with somebody who will spread child porno, nazism, drugs etc in "free world". Because local people will see this as bad and dangerous things for they kids and theyr society. Just those recluses will be more sensitive, and the mere idea what you tell them what they shoudlnt beat theyr wifes everyday could be saw as pure evil already from them. And yes, if you will get some followers, you would endanger them. As if you will preach the idea of killing coloured people just for the sake, and get open followers of it in Sw. They will be endangered for persecution for it.

Seriously, drop that "democracy" stuff and just fairly say - "they do bad, no matter how they draw it". Democracy on its own is very bad stuff, its easily manipulated, and at least 99% ends with power in hands of some organized minority, what explot the fundamental problems of idea for own sake. Im talking about it now only because its really unbearable to actually discuss Ucraine, where people already are shot by pro-Russian guys on the streets. And Russian media claim what its Ucraininans shot them,

DarzaR, I must say that every single autocratic dictator dream about citizens like you. You are just perfect.

The. Democracy.Is.When.Enough.People.Support.The.Actions.Of.Power. Are those people cheated, or dumb, or honestly believe in some ideal is no matter. Because you simply never can be able to surely know theyr intentions. If somebody would mindcontrol the whole Sw population, exept elected government to wage a war with Uruguay and then perfrom the ritual self-immolation, and if government will try to prevent population from it - it will be non-democratic decision, and such government will work against own people. If you had dictatorship of some kind, otherwise - your govenment have some credentials to stop it, at least for the sake of people of Uruguay, tho.
Dunno if it would entertain you or not, but if i wrote all that stuff on some Russian forum now - ill be immediately declared, a west-sucking prostitute hater of Russia, who had sold to the rotten fake West, liberal, fascist, national traitor, and wished a death, if taking only in mild terms, omitting curses .

You know that what you are describing above is a direct description for Autocracy ("actions of power") a.k.a. Dictatorship and that has nothing to do with democracy. I think you really have no idea what democracy is.

Then every single country in human history was democratic because in every country people obeyed their leaders. Sometimes because of fear, sometimes because they were brainwashed, sometimes because they were truly democratic. Well, sometimes there were revolts and stuff, but it was only temporary state, because after revolts there are always new leaders.