A description of democracy will typically require an explanation and a justification, since a regime's self-description as a democracy is often tendentious and self-serving.

Demokratiya nisbiy tushuncha bo'lgani uchun uni ta'riflashdan ko'ra tasvirlash ko'p kuzatilayapti. Chunki har bir jamiyat demokratiyani o'z mentalitetiga bog'lab tushuntirishga harakat qiladi.

I don't see an opposition between both ideas. A description can be considered an explanation of the mechanisms that are taking place in a social system; in this case, I think a definition of democracy must focus on specific aspects that are judged pragmatically to guarantee a valuable use of that description based on some aspect. For example, defining a democracy around the idea of determination of chains of command using a legally defined majority will be useful if we want to reduce the ambiguity of the concept, coordinating it with other definitions.

A justification, on the other hand, will need to assume a certain ethical system. For example, if we take a system of moral prescriptions that tend to assure the satisfaction of basic needs, the justification of democracy will need, previously, a definition of it; just by that, we will be able to evaluate the correspondence of the defined ideas with the moral system of norms. Finally, we will analyze if the defined mechanisms of democracy are taking place in a determinate human population.

As I have shown, there is no incompatibility between explaining or describing a specific idea of democracy and then evaluating if that description is justified by a certain bunch of moral norms.