Democracy is a requirement to have a valid state

It is difficult to get democracy from a state that doesn't want to give it to you because by definition you have no power. For a state to allow or extend democracy means that it is giving up power for no other reason than to let other people have power. This is an entirely selfless act assuming the power of the state is not being threatened by a lack of democracy. If the state and the members of the state are unthreatened then it is unlikely that it will give up power by extending the franchise of democracy. A lack of democracy is by definition socialist because it means the people have less ability to curtail the extent of the state but there is no inconsistency... it is perfectly consistent for the state to be entirely undemocratic. In this scenario we are reduced merely to a simple power-struggle. If an autonomous individual declares themselves to be the true state in contrast to the established state then they will be shown to be wrong when they are overwhelmed by the power of the (established) state. So then when the state is undemocratic there is no rhetorical argument to be made in favour of democracy all we can do is to appeal to the wisdom of the legislature and if that fails we hope that the (undemocratic) state falls through being overwhelmed. Only power can establish democracy and so then there is no solid argument to be made in favour of proportional representation and against the first-past-the-post system.