What is more important, security or democracy?

Security comes second and Democracy third. The first and most important aspect of any political system is Liberty.
This is not splitting hairs. The appearance of democracy can be given by media manipulation and 'spin' - a situation we have in spades in contemporary Britain. Also while most people may be able to vote in a democracy, if they are ill-informed and/or distracted, stupid, mentally ill or physically immature, they may well vote for everything from killing Christians in the amphitheatre or votes for horses. (Plato invented the term democracy from 'demos' - the mob - and on the whole favoured only a very elitist version of so-called 'popular vote'.)
Without liberty and the freedom to say and think what we like (aside from those things threatening the safety and rights of others who would give same to us)nothing is safe.
Behind this liberty lies the Rule of Law. Essentially this means a Judiciary independent of the Executive,and the right of ALL citizens high or low to be tried by the same process as others, including a jury of their peers if they so wish.
The Nazis removed ALL liberties without changing a single thing in the Weimar Constitution in relation to 'democracy' - and after 1937, the vast majority of German VOTERS supported that.
The only basis upon which democracy can work and NOT turn into dictatorship is EITHER by having an educated, civically positive electorate OR by restricting the voting franchise to those who are.
In Britain today we have neither...which is why, when the forthcoming tidal wave of change finally hits our shores, all our liberties will be washed out with the tide. We do NOT protect our liberties enough - ask any Polish immigrant, they'll tell you soon enough.
New Labour (who are not Nazis, just Niavees) have removed many of the underlying principles of liberty, and are still busy doing it.
Democracy? Hardly anyone cared about WHY David Davis resigned,or why he was absolutely right so to do; in fact if anything they opposed his view. He was returned with amassive majority because he is very popular in his constituency...and was seen by most folk to at least be taking a stand against the ignorant twerps who are currently dismantling Magna Carta in England.
I couldn't care less WHAT 'the people' think unless they're making an INFORMED decision.
Hence I think Liberty the single most important thing,and democracy third behind security - as it was from 1939-45.
Without a value placed on liberty, nobody would be bothered to fight for our security anyway.
Great question - thanks for asking it. I hope you found the answer helpful.

The issue of trading away a degree of liberty in exchange for enhanced security lay at the heart of the Social Contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. Be loyal to the king or state and they will/have a duty to protect you. In times of national crisis such as war, liberties may be withdrawn for "security" and the greater and future good.

The theory applies equally to benevolent dictator and benevolent democracy, but of course in practice, it can be difficult to control the state - whichever form of government it has - and the liberties that are safeguarded by the state, and those that are sacrificed for "security" vary greatly.

Libertarians make great play of human rights. Those on the right concentrate on freedom of speech, thought and individual action. Those on the left add the right to food, shelter, and employment; and socialists also place importance on collective association and action such as the right to belong to a trade union and the right to strike.

These rights may conflict, and who decides which is more important? How many starving, jobless, homeless people would put freedom of expression as there highest priority? How many would choose a democracy that perpetually condemned millions to poverty, homelessness and hunger, rather than a more inclusive one party state that provided homes, jobs, food, and even free health services and education?

And even on questions of freedom: Do we really have more control of the media when it is owned by a handful of rich people rather than by the state? Come to that, how democratic are democracies?

Joseph Schumpeter define Western democracy as "the competitive struggle for the people's vote". Anarchists will tell you that it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's the government that gets elected. And if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it.

Looking at major democracies, recognition of the right of other nations to self-determination is often subjugated to geopolitics and economic imperialism.

I want my rights - all of them - but I accept that where rights conflict, democratic means should be used to resolve conflict. To this end, I want greater democracy to ensure equal rights. The rights of ordinary people should carry as much weight as those of the rich and privileged.

Protecting our rights may entail "security measures", but where these impinge upon our rights, they should always be subject to the greatest possible degree of democratic control and scrutiny; they should not be arbitrary; and they should be no more and last no longer than is democratically agreed necessary.