I -think- the anti-democratic thing is making it impossible to enforce the laws of a democratic society. If a democracy decides that strong encryption should be banned, going against that is going against the will of the people.
Of course, we all (technical people) agree that it was the right thing, but ask yourself: If there was a vote on the issue, do you think the majority of people would vote for keeping strong encryption, or do you think they'd ban it? Especially back then.
I personally think they'd ban it. I bet the majority would just go "encryption is for terrorists and bad people, we don't need it", and we'd lose the vote.
Now for an alternative thought exercise consider the situation in which a democracy votes to end itself and initiate a dictatorship. Is it democratic or anti-democratic to try to stop it?
Although the end of the Weimar Republic was essentially an electoral choice, significant chunks of the electorate by then had been skewed, divided, disenfranchised, or even displaced it wouldn't be accurate to call the elections fully representative. And yes, similar efforts are underway in the US too.
Through the good advertising it's now usually understood as 'we vote => we are in control => values', except democracy is clearly has nothing with social and humanitarian values.
Democracy is a system where political disagreements are resolved through a set of agreed-upon rules (AKA "rule of law") instead of violence. The alternative to Democracy is mass murder. There is still plenty of violence in a Democracy -- witness the prison system in the USA, but it isn't neighbors just casually murdering each other (as also happened in the USA in an organized way in the Jim Crow era). Interesting to note -- both counter-examples were / are founded on denying parties participation in the democratic process...
The Rwandan and Bosnian civil wars are both examples of "tyranny of the masses" where there's no mechanism for resolving disputes between groups, besides killing your neighbor.
Of course, we all (technical people) agree that it was the right thing, but ask yourself: If there was a vote on the issue, do you think the majority of people would vote for keeping strong encryption, or do you think they'd ban it? Especially back then.
I personally think they'd ban it. I bet the majority would just go "encryption is for terrorists and bad people, we don't need it", and we'd lose the vote.
Democracy is funny that way.