Actually that's one way to put it.
Monarch - rule of one.
Aristocracy = Rule of Few.
Democracy = Rule of All.
In monarchy or aristocracy, it is feared that, the rule of few people can compromise the preservation of "others" thus democracy = rule of all is preferred. Where all the population is given some sort of share in power, through some kind of representation, which they select themselves.
In aristocracy, power would be in the hands of few, and they might abuse it to make their lives better on the expense of "others", but when this same power is given to "everyone", then it becomes democracy. The group as a whole looks after its own interest, thus it is believed, the population wont be "abused" and would look after their own safety and interest and the "instinct of self preservation" would prevail.
So democracy has nothing to do with ideas like Secularism, and it does not even have to do with "articles of human rights" Because, essentially, democracy is rule of the majority, and the majority can do anything it wants. These actions/laws, are amoral, it means they are neither good or bad, from an objective perspective.
A popular definition of democracy is
Abraham Lincoln
"Rule of the people, by the people, for the people"
No where here do you find, "secularism" to be an essential condition for democracy, or even "humans rights"
Democracy is rule of the people, by the people ,for the people. If the people want, they can form rule and constitution, consisting of satanic rituals, human sacrifice and slavery. If it is will of the people, then so it shall be.
The connotation of how Democracy might be related to "human rights" some how, is due to the presumed "instinct of self preservation" by the population which they would follow innate in humans.
e.g, You wont see a man who would chop of his hands for the sake of it. Because it is the instinct of self preservation in him. This same "instinct of self preservation", is presumed to prevail in a larger population as well. Thus when power is given to "all" in democracy. They wont be chopping of their hands for the sake of it. This leads to the presumption, democracy "nurtures", "human rights", or rather in other words " The instinct of self preservation".
From a subjective point of view. Democracy might nurture instinct of self preservation but it does not nurture "humanity". For example, if the "population", feels it is threatened by an outside group, then they may resort to every inhumane action to eliminate their enemy. Nothing "humane" about that.
This is why you see how Americans nuked Japan without remorse, killing all men, women and children, they could find, and they don't regret it even today. Nothing humane about it.
I think some people here are confusing completely unrelated ideas and claiming how one can not be without another. Without having any fundamental understanding of what they are actually talking about. They are wrong. Thus the hardcore trolling on this thread.
PS: Also, I would like to add, how Islam and democracy are an oxymoron, is an ignorant and baseless argument.
@
qamar1990 @
Talon
once forever 
