A woeful misinterpretation of the essence of democracy

As myself, Eric Bahrt and others have correctly noted, JC Wilcox persists with his often strange notions with regard to interpretations of reality. This includes him not knowing what democracy is. Let’s take a look in a wee bit more detail:
He claims that, “democracy is a form of government controlled by laws not people”. Oh, really? Who debates, debates again, and subsequently introduces and interpret laws in the courts? People.
“Democracy is essentially apolitical.” This is a preposterous aberration of fact, by any known criteria; democracy IS political, pretty much by definition – it is a system of governance discharged by politicians by and on behalf of the people, who elect them to govern in their name. Ergo, democracy is irrefutably a form of political expression.
To state that “elected” is the “operative word” is a fallacy”. This statement is emphatically semantic taurus excretum. An understood, obverse side of this argument is government by appointment. That is, undemocratic. Democracies do not “appoint” governments. They elect them.
He says that democracy is not perfect, which is a statement of the obvious. As the cognoscenti know very well, the inherent flaws in the system do indeed give us the likes of Mugabe and the Shinawatras on occasions, whether one thinks the latter are legitimate or not.
Then we have this: “The right to vote is a principle of democracy. To hive it off, claiming that it represents democracy, shows an intent to deceive the unaware and ignorant.” This is confusing at best, and does not make sense. In other words, a classic example of a non sequitur if ever there was one.
There’s no point in exhausting more intellectual energy on Wilcox’s typical ordure, other than to say that he clearly needs to engage with the real world, and also to leave the expertise to the experts.
Dr Frank