[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I think it is generally accepted that whatever a democracy is, the UK is one of them


[/ QUOTE ]

It is also generally accepted that pre-Nazi Germany was not a democracy, but in fact a republic. Hence, historians retroactively dubbed it the Weimar Republic.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm not sure how much you know about our political system, but the executive branch (i.e Cabinet and the PM) is in practically completely control of the legislative branch (i.e. Parliament). So we fail one of your necessary conditions already.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't fail any of td's conditions. He didn't require the seperation of powers....he merely said their existence, and to be fair, they do exist.

[ QUOTE ]
the Nazi analogy used in the first place (a few pages back) is a perfectly legitimate analogy to use,


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that pre-Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy, and that Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

[ QUOTE ]

because even if you argue about to what extent Germany was a democracy, it is hard to argue that Hitler didn't at least have a democratic mandate (or at least as much of a democratic mandate as Labour do currently)


[/ QUOTE ]

What elections gave Hitler a democratic mandate? He was appointed Chancellor by the president in early 1933.

The elections of July 1932 gave the Nazi party majority in the Reichstag, by a 37% vote, and the Reichstag was dissolved in the time between this and Hitler's appointment, in favor of another election in Novemeber 1932, in which the Nazi party took 33% of the votes...and then von Schleicher dissolved the Reichstag again and annointed himself the "Socialist General", effectively a Presidential dictatorship....etc...

Hitler thwarted this takeover by convincing Hindenburg to name him chancellor.

Hence, the Machterschleichung...or "sneaking into power'.

Hardly a "democratic mandate".