An offender of Democracy, of a "Peoples Government" is someone who attempts to diminish or sustain the present legitimized role of limitations in which the people play in social self-governance. Many people want to attempt corrective governing changes by way of an observed political and judicial process that exercises an imposition of its underlying architecture... so as to perpetuate it, or leave in place some loophole or "back door" entry point in order to subjugate the people like a virus remaining dormant in a system— awaiting a more viable environment that can be artificially created by one or more nefarious individuals wanting to have an excuse in order to effect dominant control. Sustaining the present structure of Democracy as it is practiced in various countries by insisting that reforms take place within a structure as it is, without a redesign in the drafting of its foundation, is a type of sentimentality which helps to permit ancient ideas maintain holds of superstition cloaked in modern dress. The practice of Democracy needs to be enhanced by way of a redesigned government... and not try to work out social problems by way of a process that is inherently designed to curtail an actual practice thereof. One person's definition of democracy is not another's, but those who strive to work together need to arrive at a shared concerted opinion. The people can not think in terms of one definition and have a government that practices another, while at the same providing the public with an illusion of that which they think is being expressed.
Those who proclaim a need to increase the efforts of the government to assist in the well-being of the populace because they feel, like Professor Douglas J. Amy's insightful reflections and analysis that the Government is Good... might be individuals cited as an offender of Democracy by not also calling for the practiced expression of enhanced Democracy through a needed redefinition thereof. If we are to claim that Government is Good based on the value to which we place on Democratic standards, then Government might thus be necessarily improved through an increased valuation of Democracy by way of enhancing its practice over the current extremely limited expressions being played out all over the planet. Let us move from good to better followed by a best government that humanity has yet to experience.
Another example is those whose efforts seem genuinely focused on rallying support for sincerely shared ideas to bring about multi-faceted reforms such as the Common Cause organization with its, for example, a Blueprint For a Great Democracy. Despite all the well-intentioned efforts and reformist gains, the fundamental structure of the government's functioning remains intact, which perpetuates a falsified "Peoples Government" because of the severe limitations of self-governance being imposed on the public. In other words, the so-called Blueprint for a Great Democracy is a specious treasure map being referred to in a fairy tale,
To speak of a "blueprint" and yet not be able to produce the conventionality of it being in the form of an actual document, thus leading to the suspicion of having an illusory "article of faith" that can be arbitrarily altered by those assuming some moment of leadership. It becomes just as specious as the inferred "Social Contract" doctrine which philosophically pre-dated Thomas Hobbes' usage, but to whom Social Scientists regularly make note of in historical references. Additionally, what is being meant by the word "Democracy"? Is it meant in a pristine sense as coined in antiquity to denote a "peoples government", and yet this is then given yet another type of definition to fit the unspoken inclinations of particular adherents in a specific circumstance to further undisclosed ambitions of a certain leadership? One might well assume it to be an arbitrary standard since a clear definition is loudly vacuous (without clearly assigned substantive matter). But such a group as Common Cause is not alone. Another similar standard could likewise be inferred by those connected with the sincere efforts of the Public Citizen group.
The definition of Democracy can not be left up to those who want to perpetuate a government that actively practices a greatly diminished value thereof. And this is exactly what the governments of America, Britain, Canada, and many others, are doing.
However, a more clear example of an Offender of Democracy can be seen in those calling for a reduction in the size of government; because they are actually proclaiming a desire to reduce the ability of the people to collectively govern themselves (by increasing the directive ability of a select few). If the ability of the whole is decreased, then those who are left will garner more power, and can be more easily influenced by another select few, such as those in business or religion, or otherwise.
But we mustn't overlook the role in which judges are using their role to offend Democratic standards by imposing their Will on the Public. Instead of supporting the need of the people to exercise an enhanced expression of Democracy, Judges impose their Will and the people have little collective means to oppose them. If the people protest a decision, a judge may well impose a declaration of contempt and use laws not established by the Will of the People, to fine or jail them. The situation is even more dire when the governing system is set up so that an elected official can choose whom they want to sit on a particular bench, and the person selected is not answerable to the people. For example, how the Supreme Court is chosen, term in office, and that they are exempt from having to be answerable to the people, is ludicrous! This is a sham expression of Democracy. Such a Constitutionally dictated process is an offender of Democracy.
Groups such as the Insurance and Medical Industries are offenders of Democracy because it is they who want to call the shots with respect to escalating costs. The collective Will of the people is relegated towards accepting the dictates of Representatives that may be biased towards assisting the offenders of Democracy because of received campaign or other contributions which sway their opinions towards supporting legislation to help maintain their ability to keep costs high, or suppressing legislation that would interfere in their ability to do so. The people are neither able to speak for themselves nor collectively produce needed laws as protections from the many offenders of Democracy they have to contend with.
Because America, Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, France and many other countries already practice variations of diminished Democracy, regardless of what form of government they say they have; the people are already predisposed towards accepting a diminished self-governing role. It is far easier to keep someone stuck in quicksand when they are proportionally in it and are provided sustenance as well as barriers to "keep them in their place". While the people are able to protest against something, such as an unwelcomed social current created by an increasing population... including the absorption of refugees... which some will think is unfair or needs to be addressed because available resources will have to be reduced to the native citizenry; such protestive behavior is permitted, so long as the people remain stuck in the muck. Even riots will be permitted to some degree, to let the people vent frustrations, just so long as they return to accepting their former way of life... or a lesser expression thereof.
Ideas and legislation are contoured to support a diminished role in which the people are permitted to play in deciding what is best for themselves. Such laws, put into function by a prevailing government, practices a diminished form of Democracy... because that is how it is structured. In order to effectively address the abuses of the many Offenders of Democracy, the people will need a New form of government that will practice an enhanced formula of Democracy. This is true for Communism and Socialism. When those who are elected or chosen by the elected to perform the function of governance attempt to assert their views over the people, the people are forced to collectively impose its Will on such offenders. In other words, those living in a Socialist or Communist social environment must assert a Democracy. A Democracy is the collective Will of the people addressing their needs. Typically, in most governments, the people are encouraged through custom and allegiance, and forced by law, to obligingly play a severely scaled back version of Democracy— and can only free themselves from the bog, from the mire (that many do not recognize because they were born into it and can not see beyond their own finger-tips); by making a Declaration For Greater Independence and adopting a new formula of government, a Cenocracy. A Cenocracy can be, and throughout history has been applied to different forms of governing practice when the people confront the offenders of their customary brand of Democracy.
By fully acknowledging that the government is good, or at least tries to be in multiple instances, it is of need to acknowledge the possibility that it can be better if it plays a larger role. However, The present form of our so-called Democracy, which is supposed to be a "peoples government", needs to undergo a revision of its definition since the present formula of government is of a limited variety thereof. It is the wrong system in which the best delivery of needed assistance should be administered. In order for a good government to become a better one, it must undergo a Cenocratic change. In order for the Will of the People to appropriately function in order to effectively confront the Offenses committed by individuals and groups (Corporations, Institutions, government departments, branches, etc...) whose activities do not have the peoples' best interests in mind nor heart; a different formula of governance must be adopted to address this short-coming. When an established form of government tirelessly permits the people to time and again be subjected to varying offenders, a New Government, a Cenocracy must be established.
On one side of the US Seal we find the words "E pluribus unum", which has been translated as "Out of many, one", though it has also been described as "One out of many" or "One from many". While some interpret this to mean all of us represent a the nation, it can also be interpreted to suggest that it refers to the practice of government which utilizes the labors and resources of the many to provide for the wealth and control of a few. In other words, it can well portray the existence of an antiquated mindset that needs to be revised to express an enhanced model of Democracy.
On the other side of the US Seal with its emblematic reference of ancient Egyptian ideas involving the pyramid, eye of god and the like, we find the phrase "Annuit cœptis", with the first word translated as "to nod" or "to approve", and the second word translated as "commencement, undertaking". From the Wikipedia it is noted that this is literally translated, "[he/she/it] favors our undertakings" or "[he/she/it] has favored our undertakings". For some, this means that a god, whether they are a he, she or it... is said to favor us. The second phrase on this side of the US seal "Novus ordo seclorum" is translated as "New Order of the Ages". Those who study symbolism often do research into origins which might reveal forgotten, concealed, or overlooked meanings.
Antiquated ideas linger as indicated by the usage of such symbolism. The present formula of Democracy is part of that antiquity and sorely needs to be updated. The people have suffered enough due to the lingering form of diminished Democracy that is perpetrated and perpetuated by a few to suppress the collective Will of the many.
And for those interested in symbolism, you might be interested in viewing information at the following page: Sun Rays influenced Pyramid Design?