The answer to your question hinges on the definition of two terms that, historically, have been hotly debated: “democracy” and “genocide”. With that in mind, I am going to present the case for a “yes” answer. My case study comes from Australia, a country that has digitised many of the primary sources of its history.
The case study is the colony of Queensland, which existed on the continent of Australia from 1861, when it was separated from the parent colony of New South Wales, until 1901, when it became the state of Queensland, one of six newly-federated states of the Commonwealth of Australia. In 1861, at the time of Queensland’s separation from NSW, almost all men over the age of 21 had the right to vote via secret ballot (with a property qualification). Compared to England, this was a far more democratic system. However, it’s important to note that Queensland women did not have the right to vote in state elections until 1905 (although they had the vote in federal elections from 1900). Aboriginal men were technically not excluded from voting, but the property qualification generally would have excluded most of them, and it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Aboriginal men showing up at a polling place would have been simply turned away and prevented from voting, even if they met the qualification. In 1885 Queensland passed an act that specifically excluded Aboriginal men from voting. In 1965 Queensland finally gave Aboriginal men and women the right to vote, the last Australian state to do so. Colonial Queensland was a democracy by nineteenth-century British standards, but there were important exclusions that we must not lose sight of.
So, having answered the “democracy” part of the question, let's answer the "genocide" part of the question. Did a genocide occur in Queensland, and if so, who committed it?
As the other answer noted, Raphael Lemkin himself saw Australia as a place where genocide had occurred, and planned a chapter on it in his world history of genocide (which, sadly, his death prevented him from completing). His nearly-complete chapter on the case of Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) as a place where genocide had occurred does not help us here, though, because that genocide occurred in the 1820s and early 1830s, before VDL had democratic government.
In 2000, legal scholar Alison Palmer published a book (Colonial Genocides) in which she argued that Queensland had seen a settler-led genocide. She argued that the Queensland government had been powerless to prevent the waves of settlers (mostly British and other Europeans) from killing Aboriginal people on its vast frontier.
Since then other historians, especially Timothy Bottoms and Jonathan Richards, have argued against the Queensland colonial government's innocence. Thanks to their work (and that of others such as Dirk Moses), it’s now clear that the government was aware of mass killings and at least tacitly condoned them. Whether it had the ability to stop the killing, even if it wanted to, is a matter for debate. Richards in particular focuses on Queensland's Native Police, which acted as the shock troops of the British Empire, carrying out attacks on traditional-living Aboriginal people for a period of forty or so years.
So, my answer to you is an argument for "yes". Colonial Queensland was a democracy by British standards of the time, and the actions of settlers and police there have been identified as genocide.
Democracy sources:
Letters Patent erecting Colony of Queensland 6 June 1859 (UK) (https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-47.html)
(https://www.qld.gov.au/about/about-queensland/history/women/right-to-vote).
(https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/1856-to-1889-Responsible-Government-and-Colonial-.aspx).
Genocide sources:
Tony Barta (2008), Decent Disposal: Australian Historians and the Recovery of Genocide. In: Stone D. (ed.) The Historiography of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230297784_12
Timothy Bottoms, Conspiracy of Silence, Allen & Unwin, 2013.
Ann Curthoys (2005), Raphaël Lemkin's ‘Tasmania’: an introduction, Patterns of Prejudice, 39:2, 162-169, DOI: 10.1080/00313220500106212
A. Dirk Moses (ed.), Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Berghahn, 2004.
Alison Palmer, Colonial Genocides, Crawford House, 2000.
Jonathan Richards, The Secret War, University of Queensland Press, 2008.
Thomas James Rogers & Stephen Bain (2016), Genocide and frontier violence in Australia, Journal of Genocide Research, 18:1, 83-100, DOI: 10.1080/14623528.2016.1120466
Hi, it seems you're asking about the American Indian genocide(s) that occurred in the United States. This topic is often controversial and can lead to inaccurate information. This message is not intended to provide you with all of the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as genocide denialism in this regard, and provide a short list of introductory reading. Because this topic covers a large area of study, actions of the United States will be highlighted. There is always more that can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point for you.
##What is Genocide?
Since the conceptualization of the act of genocide, scholars have developed a variety of frameworks to evaluate instances that may be considered genocide. One of the more common frameworks is the definition and criteria implemented by the United Nations. The term "genocide," as coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943, was defined by the U.N. in 1948. The use of this term was further elaborated by the genocide convention.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
Article II: In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
##American Indian Genocides – Did they happen?
Since the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, typically signaled with the appearance of Columbus in 1492, Indigenous Peoples have experienced systematic oppression and extermination at the hands of colonial powers. These colonizing governments either organized or sponsored acts of genocide perpetrated by settlers, targeting Indigenous settlements for complete destruction; eliminating sources of food and access to life-sustaining resources; instituting child separation policies; and forcefully relocating Indigenous populations to often times inhospitable tracts of land, now known as “reservations.” All of these acts constitute what scholars now recognize as genocide. The horrendous acts that occurred in the Americas was even an example proposed by Lemkin himself, where it is noted from his writings:
These actions took place over the entirety of the Americas, exacerbating the rapid depopulation of Indigenous Nations and communities. Exact figures of the population decline are inconclusive, giving us only estimates at best, with Pre-Columbian population numbers ranging anywhere from as low as 8 million to as high as ~100 million inhabitants across North, Central, and South America. What we do know is that in the United States, records indicate the American Indian population had dropped to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Despite any debate about population statistics, the historical records and narratives conclude that, at least according to the U.N. definition, genocide was committed.
##Mental Element: Establishing Intent
In order for genocide to be committed, there must be reasonable evidence to establish an intent to commit what constitutes genocide. Through both word and action, we can see that colonial powers, such as the United States, did intend at times to exterminate American Indian populations, often with public support. Government officials, journalists, scholars, and public figures echoed societal sentiments regarding their desire to destroy Indians, either in reference to specific groups or the whole race.
”This unfortunate race, whom we had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate.”
"That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected."
--California Governor Peter Burnett, 1851
". . .these Indians will in the end be exterminated. They must soon be crushed - they will be exterminated before the onward march of the white man."
--U.S. Senator John Weller, 1852, page 17, citation 92
##Physical Element: Acting with Purpose
U.S. Army Policy of Killing Buffalo (Criterion C)
In this post, it is explained how it was the intention and policy of the U.S. Army to kill the buffalo of America off in an attempt to subdue, and even exterminate, the Plains Indians.
Sterilization (Criterion D)
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is responsible for providing proper health care for American Indians as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women. Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women. Many of these sterilizations were conducted without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion.
Boarding Schools (Criterion E)
The systematic removal of Indian children from their parents and placement into boarding schools was a policy implemented by the United States meant to force American Indian children to assimilate into American culture, thus “[killing] the Indian, [and saving] the man.” These schools were operated by various entities, including the federal government and church/missionary organizations. While constituting cultural genocide as well, American Indian children were beaten, neglected, and barred from practicing their cultures. Some children even died at these schools.
##But What About the Diseases?
In the United States, a subtle state of denial exists regarding portions of this country's history. One of the biggest issues concerning the colonization of the Americas is whether or not this genocide was committed by the incoming colonists. And while the finer points of this subject are still being discussed, few academics would deny that acts of genocide were committed. However, there are those who vehemently attempt to refute conclusions made by experts and assert that no genocide occurred. These “methods of denialism” are important to recognize to avoid being manipulated by those who would see the historical narratives change for the worse.
One of the primary methods of denial is the over severity of diseases introduced into the Americas after the arrival of the colonizers, effectively turning these diseases into ethopoeic scapegoats responsible for the deaths of Indigenous Peoples. While it is true that disease was a huge component of the depopulation of the Americas, often resulting in up to a 95% mortality rate for many communities and meaning some communities endured more deaths from disease, these effects were greatly exacerbated by actions of colonization.
##Further Reading
Though there is much information about this topic, this introductory list of books and resources provide ample evidence to attest the information presented here: