>otherwise how do you decide who's a dictator and who isn't? :-) That's exactly my point. Before a poll, there is nobody to judge who is who and what is what. So, it is up to the" voice for dictatorship" itself to decide whether it wants to present it as a dissenting voice (meaning it agrees to honor the voice of the majority when a poll occurs) or a dictating voice (meaning it does not agree to honor the voice of the majority). If the voice for a dictatorship present itself as a dissenting voice, then it does not contradict with democracy at all. Because the dictatorship it is talking about it is not really a dictatorship. So, the essence of this argument is that this so called pro-dictatorship voice has to accept the basic norm of democracy (honoring the voice of majority) in order to be included in a democracy. If they do not accept that basic norm and yet are included in a democracy, then it is clear that the democracy has recognized the pro-dictatorship as a "dissenting voice" irrespective of later's view. Either way, a voice recognized as a dictating voice can not be included in a democracy. My 2 paisa.