I have to disagree with that, in part but not in whole. Democracy might aim to prevent injustice--as you put it, and with which I agree--but it does not always succeed. Therefore saying that "unjust moves are dictatorial" misses the point that there is still a "democratic elite" in some democracies, which try to promote their interests above everyone else's. No one has invented a form of government that stops all injustice. Therefore, it's incorrect to call a government a dictatorship because it has done unjust things; because democracies do do unjust things. It's part of human nature. That's why Winston Churchill said (or is thought to have said) "democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other ones that have been tried." The point of democracy is to minimize injustice. No one's invented a form of government yet that has successfully eliminated it yet.
James Madison in his famous Federalist No. 10 spoke about "the violence of faction." What he was talking about was precisely that: elites governing for themselves. Today, we would call Madison's "faction" a special interest. His belief was that, in an extended republic, there are too many elites for any one of them to gain the upper hand for any extended period of time. (Oops.)
I totally agree with this statement. People vote based on their perception, which doesn't always match up with the facts--in fact, it frequently doesn't match up with facts. This is one of the reasons that injustices occur in democracies. Many people vote out of ignorance, and it's impossible for anyone--even for a person who is well-informed--to be armed with all the facts before they check the box inside the voting booth. (For this reason we have republics instead of direct democracies.) And of course, it is human nature to not truly understand what it's like for someone else until you've walked a mile in his shoes. It's not possible to walk a mile in everyone else's shoes before going into the polling booth.
I totally agree with this statement as well! In western democracies, libel or slander--especially when the slanderer is attempting to ruin you--is not legal. True, that in the USA, the first amendment protects free speech and press, but not actual libel. (Of course it's actually hard in the United States to stop someone libeling you once they've done it: you have to be able to prove the slanderer's intent in court. Otherwise the person libeling you can just claim "oops, i was wrong.") There's also the expression "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." You certainly cannot. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to start a stampede for the fire exit when there's no fire.
Well, politicians do seem to have a special talent for shifting blame onto their colleagues. The proverb that seems most applicable would be "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan." That's why the framers of the American constitution created a one-man executive (he might have assistants, but they're not equal to him in authority): because if there were a council of chief executives they'd spend their entire time shifting blame onto each other. It's hard for a president to totally escape blame for some sort of screw-up: he's the most visible member of the regime and the most powerful, so the egg will land squarely on his face. (Hopefully.)
Pretty good debate so far!