[psychlops]

> The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.

Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.

[surgical_fire]

> If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.

It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an independent judicial system that can ensure that rules are being followed properly.

Separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, does it ring a bell to you?

If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

[psychlops]

Or if the judiciary has any sort of bias as is implied in this case. (I don't pretend to know the details)

I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.

[ModernMech]

Only if those people act in anti-democratic ways. E.g. if they apply the law selectively, if they forego or restrict due process, and if they play around with the meaning of words and crimes then yeah, that's anti-democratic. For example, people brought up what's happening in Turkey, and I agree what's happening there is anti-democratic.

But if the people involved are not making up crimes, but prosecuting crimes; if they are not targeting people specifically, but enforcing the law that applies to everyone; and if they are allowing for the maximum possible due process, then there really isn't much of a case for that process being anti-democratic.