I don't think that that is technically right. Those things are not part of democracy (not your words exactly, Keith, I know) but may (with qualifications) be desirable for a democracy the better to function.

For democracy to function there must be an informed electorate and that requires a plural press, although that press may require some regulation. I'd suggest that there might be merit in a democracy that did not have a two-party or three-party system as those have led to the "dictatorship of the majority" - and in some cases a dictatorship of something less than a majority. There is also the possibility that a view held by a majority may be simply factually wrong (like the once near universal beliefs that the earth was flat, or that the sun went round the earth) or morally wrong (like support, happily I think waning, for the death penalty).

Civil liberties are part of the Dicean concept of rule of law - which our present UK government are busily trying to reduce, or at least of which they wish to reduce the effectiveness. They may well be necessary for a democracy properly to function but are not I think an intrinsic part of democracy - and indeed our present government in many cases wishes, it seems, to reduce them. Moreover, one person's liberty impinges on that of another so some balancing is necessary. Do we not all wince when watching those TV shows about the police in action and see the coercive way that the police address those they arrest?