Again, winners of democratic elections are often only considered legitimate if they protect the rights of ethnic minorities. Otherwise they are viewed as oppressors supported by the dominant ethnicity. Mob rule != democracy.
Consider how a number of nascent democracies in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries are now widely regarded as having had a democratic deficit because of their treatment of Jews or of other ethnic minorities, in spite of the governments being elected by a majority of voters.
And in this case, the percentage that the Copts make up of the Egyptian population (which is infamously disputed, so giving a figure like you did is risky) is completely irrelevant, because any modern democratic state is obliged to respect various freedoms regardless of the amount of the population keen on them.
Depends on the minority. The ever-present minority of people with merely different political views who can just comfortably wait until the next election, do not make an election illegitimate. But if it’s a religious or ethnic minority and its basic human rights and prosperity are threatened by the new regime, then that does suggest that the new government lacks legitimacy even if a majority of the population voted for it. And that was definitely the case with Egypt’s first post-Tahrir Square government and the Copts. A population cannot vote its universal human rights away.
I think instead of "legitimacy", which doesn't mean anything, what you're really saying is "approved by the West and Israel". Similar to Gaza's election or many South American socialist governments, if people make the wrong choice then democracy is discarded.
It is a typical retort to anyone criticizing Egypt's first Tahrir Square government that they are representative of "the West and Israel", when in fact the notion that there exist certain universal human rights that any state is bound to respect, is upheld even in many countries outside of the West and Israel.
Oops, was I a bit sly? Perhaps that equation should be amended to read "(occasional) mob rule".
The people become "ochlos" crowd when in sub-groups, or perhaps when they start causing irritation "ochlesis". Before that, the demos is just a bunch of people.
Originally demos refers just the people of a particular land, from Homeric "demos" = land, and expanded over time to include particular bunches of people (e.g., of a village or town, or a band of people).
The political sense of the people as free and sovereign citizens (the body politic; Latin "plebs") is a later meaning. Before that, demos used to refer to the mass of subjects contrasted to the "basileus" king.
Of course, both demos and ochlos can refer to a crowd (as can "plethos"). One could say that demos has a common attribute (e.g. place of origin) giving it stronger cohesion, while an ochlos may be ad hoc.
Still, ochlos is mass/multitude of people, with the ability to exercise influence in a democratic assembly. It is that characteristic of democracy as mob rule - alright, occasionally, that generated early critique (but also gave rise to rhetoric and dialogue as more benign means of persuasion).
(Source: LSJ and a bit of Lampe)
From your name I gather you are from, or interested in the study of, the Mediterranean?
Consider how a number of nascent democracies in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries are now widely regarded as having had a democratic deficit because of their treatment of Jews or of other ethnic minorities, in spite of the governments being elected by a majority of voters.
And in this case, the percentage that the Copts make up of the Egyptian population (which is infamously disputed, so giving a figure like you did is risky) is completely irrelevant, because any modern democratic state is obliged to respect various freedoms regardless of the amount of the population keen on them.