Why not?
As long as these democracies are not oppressive to their people, what’s the big deal?
If they're not giving the people the right to pick their own rulers after a significant amount of time, then they are inherently being oppressive of their people. People have an inherent collective right to pick their rulers.
How long of a term limit is too long to be considered a democracy?
In the United Kingdom, there has to be a General Election for a new Parliament every five years; the only exception is when there's a truly existential threat, like World War II. (And the U.K. held a General Election literally as soon as it was possible to do so, even before that war was fully over.)
The term of office for the President of the United Mexican States is six years.
I think that if we're looking at longer than seven years for a new election for the legislature and/or executive, then we've got a problem.
Sarek seems to serve as both, which is part of the reason why I think the Federation uses the title of "ambassador" for Federation Council positions. He's referred to as the "ambassador from Vulcan" in TOS' "Journey To Babel," but he also seems to have a position and vote on the Federation Council. He's able to walk on the floor of the Council chamber to confront the Klingon Ambassador in The Voyage Home and he's a pivotal vote on the admission of Coridan too.
He represents Vulcan but also is sent by the Federation to negotiate a treaty with the Legarans in TNG.
Of course, it's also possible that he changed jobs at some point. And the Klingon Ambassador to the UFP was allowed on the floor of the Federation Council too, so clearly this is not something that
only Federation Councillors can do.
In the United States, federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. In recent years, there's been some feeling that this should be reformed, but does that technically make US not a democracy given the ability of federal judges to affect law (e.g., abortion rights, etc.)?
I mean,
I don't think the United States is a real democracy, although it's mostly for reasons other than federal judges and justices holding terms of good behavior. But when the Supreme Court has also claimed for itself an excessive amount of power without being meaningfully accountable to anyone, yeah, I think life terms for justices contributes to a democratic deficit.
In other circumstances, I would argue that life terms for judges and justices is a very different thing, because in theory the judicial branch is not supposed to directly govern the way the executive and legislature do.
I mean, in Trek canon, Sarek served as the ambassador for Vulcan for over a century.
Again, we don't know exactly what Sarek's job title(s) was/were. We don't know if he was the Ambassador
of Vulcan
to the Federation, or
of the Federation
to non-Federation powers, or both at various points.
But all of the, what are they called, "delegates"? Actually, "a hundred and fourteen delegates aboard for two weeks, thirty two of them ambassadors". And they're going to a "council".
Spock also refers to his father as a "diplomat" not a "legislator" or "statesman". But we're putting a lot of weight on two episodes when the ground has been covered elsewhere, I suppose.
Yeah, the legal mechanics of "Journey to Babel" were unclear.
And there are parliaments were sometimes the leader serves for as long as twenty years. They are still considered democracies.
And if they hold elections during that period wherein the leader has to obtain a new democratic mandate which will also expire, then it is! Yeah, Angela Merkel was Federal Chancellor of Germany for 16 years, but Germany also held federal elections for the Bundestag in 2005, 2009, 2013, and 2017. In any of these elections, the German people could have elected a different majority party to the Bundestag; Merkel's mandate to serve as Federal Chancellor expired three times and she had to win new elections three times.
It does not seem unreasonable for the Federation to at least request that there is an election every twenty years on such planets where the monarchies are intended to rule for life.
Twenty years is hardly adequate. That's only one election a generation. People
change their minds. Circumstances change. A democratic mandate cannot reasonably extend much more than half a decade.
What if they are allowed to vote as to whether various legislation should be made law, and rather frequently, such as on a weekly schedule. Or for other positions to be filled except the monarchy every few years. Then what? Is it still anti-democratic?
If every official
except the monarch is popularly elected
but the monarch's rule is anything more than ceremonial, then you are describing a hybrid regime like Iran's that contains both democratic and anti-democratic elements.
