>>11
You already understand most of this as external organisations "special governing bodies" and bribery but you took the time to further explain so ill type this out even though it will get misunderstood, the definitions cut vary close that explaining the cutting difference is hard even for an analytical language.
The democratic attribute has to do with the directly affiliated society not all societies involved and other societies can forcibly capture since they are unequal even from that goverment if in that form of democracy the government isn't under one society not the other way around or with modifications. It's an attribute all forms of democracy you listed have but not the entirety nor does any of them really prevent forceful capture by the government it's self, it's the will of the society that does at varying degrees depending on the democracy. Having the democratic trait may affect that will towards not allowing a take over. If you want to use america as an example their constitution and related papers are a written societal will, the social contract.
Here's the american definitions from oxford which show the important difference, most "westerners" don't understand how democratic doesn't directly equal any form of democracy and is only an attribute.
democratic
based on the principle that all members of society are equal rather than divided by money or social class
democracy
uncountable fair and equal treatment of everyone in an organization, etc, and their right to take part in making decisionsUncountable is also of interest here. The society is usually part of the organisation in theory but not it's entirety in most cases and no form of democracy strictly requires the governmental organisation to be completely embedded with the affiliated society in use, other unequal societies are still part of.
All posters here understand there's multiple forms of democracy and theoretical systems don't directly apply in real life or atleast now do. This has almost nothing to do with the linguistic origins of these words which gives an even worse case for the terms democratic and democraties. I would like if you researched both of them but there's really no practical use, there's a high chance everyone here is in the position those who study history are, even if they appear to have absolute power over others. Influencing the societal will for no take overs lowers the democratic trait in the same way free speech snuffs out other free speech. The absolutes don't work with reality as you know. I'm not using societal to mean democratic republic or define the policies involved, instead it's a descriptive for the concept of society here.