I think you'd be hard pressed to get most people to agree to that strict of a definition where Norway wouldn't be considered a democracy. It's easy to pick at things like "someone has immunity in court" as unequal, but that kind of thing is typically considered compatible with a democracy. Same with grants, titles, ceremonial roles, etc - so long as the voters choices about such things aren't being suppressed it's pretty solidly in the "democracy" camp - which isn't mutually exclusive with having a decorative king.

I'm not sure what the reference to "democracy is for peace" is about, unless you count Nazi occupation and rule as the same government or something.

▲

anon191928 2 days ago | parent [-]

"King Harald holds the rank of General in the Army and Air Force, and of Admiral in the Navy. He is the nation's highest-ranking officer."

It's easy to verify and see who will lead during non peace times. Thank you for your attention.

https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277

	▲	zamadatix 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure which particular passage you're referring to, but keep in mind that page is basically a puff piece about the kings ceremonial roles. He does not actually control the government, act as the leader of the military, etc in the same way his title is "king" but any non-ceremonial rights belong to the elected prime minister. If he tried to name someone else as prime minister during the transition it wouldn't actually mean anything as it's a ceremony. Etc, unless you feel there is a specific passage which the role is not ceremonial, but it's difficult to explain how the whole thing is in response to a single link and no context.