The economist is a very dubious source for defining "democracy", given their hyperliberal free market ideology that, for example, believes that vast corruption of media for the interests of the wealthy is good and normal. Its a media empire founded in supporting slavery and imerialism, and hasn't changed much.
It’s not a media empire (that’s Pearson, if the FT and Economist are an “empire”), it wasn’t founded to support slavery (wrong by about 50 years for the UK, and supported the Union in the Civil War, https://www.economist.com/united-states/1865/04/22/the-fall-...) and I doubt very much it has ever claimed anything like “vast media corruption is good and normal”. Please don’t post without doing basic fact-checking.
