Whenever a site graduates from beta, elections are (eventually) held, and the current ♦ moderators have to stand in the election in order to be reelected. This happens even though they might have been elected already in a pro-tempore election; this is a remnant from a time where moderators on beta sites were appointed by the company, so it makes sense to have a mature community have a final decision.
Other than that, no matter how much sense it'd make, there is no such mechanism as you describe: "Elections are called as needed by the Stack Exchange Community Team on all sites."
If a moderator behaves badly, as mentioned in the comments, there are several ways to remove them; likewise for inactive moderators, they will be notified by SE staff and eventually removed.
The difference between moderators and the government is that the latter tends to make a lot of executive decisions which make quite a lot of people unhappy; most moderators don't. Individual users here may certainly not be happy with a particular moderator action, but that's usually solved via comments, a meta post or a discussion in chat.
Not with community-wide protests involving tractors blocking roads, visiting certain houses with torches, or like what happened yesterday in the Netherlands, a landslide victory for a far-right party. As I tend to say: every country gets the leader it deserves, but I digress ...