Well, seems I'm 10 pages late, but I still feel the need to clarify something: there was never a pro-democracy vs. pro-dictatorship debate in MCXA. It was a level of transparency debate. I was myself a High Council member, and I supported the release of HC topics to the public after 30 days, with the exception of topics which were still deemed sensitive. I was a supporter of fairly high levels of transparency compared to many others. Of course, everyone didn't have the same view, and some such as nc1701 wanted such extreme levels of transparency that MCXA would have been an easy target for...well, spies. No one ever advocated the elimination of the High Council or the allocation of more powers to the Co-Chancellors. In fact, the High Council was increased in size from 9 to 13 members, meaning more representation for the masses, more democracy. Your view of the topic is not only simplistic but highly skewed as well.
I'd also like to take a moment to point out one inconsistency I see in your argument: you claim that you were a huge supporter of democracy, yet you felt the need to undermine the majority and spy to move MCXA in the right direction. If you were a true advocate of democracy, you would have attempted to achieve the changes you wanted via democratic process, no? And if you had been defeated in those attempts by a majority, you would have understood that part of democracy is losing some battles and winning some, no? Your argument doesn't add up. Apparently you didn't understand the ideals you claimed you stood for.