Of course by "oligarchy" I only mean it figuratively. Formally Korea is democracy _de jure_. But the situation is so bad that I'm calling out as an oligarchy _de facto_.
What I'm attempting to get across is that oligarchies by themselves aren't inherently any worse than other forms of rule. Corruption is what makes them and other forms bad.
Debatable. First, moral and ethical arguments for democracy: fairness, pursuit of happiness etc. Second, empirical argument: in this modern age, democracy tends to fare pretty well in comparison to other forms of government.
You mean Switzerland of course? Elsewhere is a republic. They fare as differently as there are countries that employ it. And each has a different flavour.
Switzerland is a republic too. Most democracies are either republics or constitutional monarchies.
There is no contradiction between being a republic and a democracy unless one unreasonably restricts the definition of democracy to direct democracy. Reasonable definitions of democracy include representative democracy, which is practiced in many republics.
Democracy and Republic aren't mutually exclusive. I'd call rule of law with a democratic constitution (written or unwritten), political representation (direct or indirect), respect of human rights and civil rights to be the elements of modern liberal democracy.
And democracies have attempted to abridge power via separation, rule of law and representation principles.
As we see, many republics face problems with all of the above. Including US. Technicalities such as non-majority presidents and strict bipartisan systems...
In certain countries like UK, where apparently ruling party was against the strict referendum results.
In Poland, where the ruling party is changing the judicial branch to their benefit.