Hanna, this is a difficult question.

First of all, there is different understanding of democracy in different cultures.

In the West the existence of choice is empathized.

That said if there are two candidates with the same program and similar views in the ballot, it is said that there is democracy,
even if the people cannot affect the policy in any way after the election.

It is claimed by theorists that the very existence of an alternative makes the politicians to compete with each other and account for the demands of the people.
To promote competition the law usually limits the number of terms one person can occupy the office.

It also should be noted that in the West (especially in the USA) there is a strong feeling that the state is inevitably hostile toward the people, so that
the more the state power is restricted the more democratic and free the country is. Democracy is thus understood as a permanent struggle between the people
and the state for their rights. The more rights the people have against the state, the more restricted the state is, the more democracy there is.

Opposite understanding of democracy is characteristic for the former USSR and possibly for other countries. In these cultures democracy was understood
literally as the rule of the people and for the people. If so, it follows that democracy does not welcome competition and conflict of interest: if there are two hostile candidates,
who propose different policies, it follows that at least one of them does not represent the people (there cannot be two opposing
rules of people at the same time in one nation).

Alteration of candidates from this point of view is not positive: if the former official represented the people, and the new one
has opposing views, this means that the new one is against people. So the official should occupy the office as long as he/she is effective rather than step down
for the sake of alteration and competition. At the same time, the very idea of the rule of people requires that the candidate should be responsible before his electors
and could be fired quickly at any moment without complicated procedure as he depart from the wishes of the electors, becomes ineffective and conducts mistakes.

The idea of the rule of the people also requires that the officials and deputies should not be professional politicians as much as possible so that to represent the class
from which they were only temporarily taken.

In this point of view the state is not considered hostile to the people, just the opposite: as the state is considered democratic, and ruled by the people
and for the people, the people generally do not need their rights protected from the state as the state=the people. So the more power the state has, the more democracy there is as the state represents the people. Spheres which not affected by the state such as private life are inherently undemocratic by this definition.

I think the misunderstanding of the different views of democracy was the cause of some Cold War criticism of the opposing camp.

The Soviets said "Your state is hostile towards the people!", not understanding that the western concept of democracy considers the state inevitably hostile to the people
and puts emphasis on protection of the rights, while the Americans said "Your rights are not protected from the state!", without understanding that the Soviet theory
equated the state and the people so protecting the rights from the state looked like protecting people from the people. The West: "You have non-alternative elections!". The East: "Your elected representatives and officials cannot be revoked or otherwise affected!"


The West

* State is hostile to the people
* People need their rights protected from the state
* Political competition makes the state more people-friendly (democratic)
* The state is inherently anti-democratic
* The more spheres the state controls, the more anti-democratic the country is
because state control means restriction of human rights

The East

* State represents the people
* Those against the democratic state are against the people
* Political competition detriments the people's power
* The private sector is inherently anti-democratic
* The more spheres the state controls, the more democratic the country is
because the state is the only democratically controlled institution