Perhaps it could become –if democracy got modified.
But if the rule and opinions of the majority overshadow those of the rest, and if that majority is influenced by few, then it’s anything but that.
Logical fallacy: Why discuss an opinion when you can discredit and shut down that opinion’s source? Because that source is authoritarian and wrong.
So then, if only few, specific sources are not ‘authoritarian’ and ‘wrong’ -since we don’t get to know all the rest- pluralism is but a meaningless label.
And so you also get that prior to elections too: One side trying to find or exaggerate or invent filth about the other, while the other side’s opinions don’t become known or not as much. That is an obvious effort to hinder logic with emotional screens. You’re supposed to vote for a policy-maker, who is going to impose policy. You don’t care what he’s done with his wife, what his education level is, what his wealth is, how he dresses etc. You care about those policies. Yet, opposition -which is not necessarily a political opposition- often tries to hit on an emotional level. In short “that guy is bad” which is a generality and means about nothing.
So, if one tries to pull himself up by pulling the other down, what do you get? I’d say a rather barbaric state of affairs. This way it isn’t the best who wins, but the one who manages to have the least dirt piled on him, or somehow manages to compensate for that. And what if somebody is not willing to throw any dirt? Or let me rephrase that: what if somebody honestly tries to win based on his wits in making policy alone? Even if he manages to get elected, he will appear at the congress or parliament and the rest will start throwing very ripe tomatoes at him, whether they like his policies or not.
Is that pluralism? No! That is the reign of those who wish to destroy and perhaps couldn’t create anything but destruction themselves. It is one trying to get imposed upon the other. And you can have that done by one, by few as well as by everybody.
In actual pluralism one allows the other.
Now, that wouldn’t be as big an issue if it only occurred in parliaments and congresses. But when you gets whites not allowing blacks, Christians not allowing atheists, rich not allowing poor, this not allowing that and visa versa you have internal conflict. And you also have that on a personal level, as well –one thought checking the other, leading to no creative action but rather to only necessary action. To put that in more practical terms, to work so as to survive and not so as to offer something is based on necessity, not free will.