An important prior question needs to be addressed before arriving at the question of whether democracy should have the same meaning in every country. We need to ask what is meant by "democracy?" If taken seriously, as meaning "rule by the people," democracy doesn't exist anywhere. In no modern state do the people actually rule themselves, or even play a substantial role in government. Everywhere, it is bureaucrats and elites that actually do the ruling or governing.  The actual influence of "the people" is always marginal. 

 

Soviet propagandists used to gloat that the only choice American voters get is between Rockefeller millionaires and Kennedy millionaires. They neglected the crucial fact that Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushes, and their likes have tended to be public spirited rather than being mere defenders of the interests of the ruling class. The Soviet propagandists also neglected the fact that U.S. elections sometimes give the electorate meaningful choice of the kinds of leaders they will have. They also give the people some choice of the rough political philosophies that will inform governance, and competition for votes often has a cleansing and invigorating effect on government.     

 

Still, it is hardly accurate to call this “self-government.” It would not even be accurate to call it "representative democracy."  The increasing complexity of government, the increasing powerlessness of legislatures, the increasing domination of the political sphere by large bureaucratic organizations, public and private, have all been widely noted in scholarly and journalistic literature.  If there ever was anything in America's past that could be meaningfully called “democracy” or “representative government,” it has been significantly eroded away in contemporary government.  It can be argued that democratic elections are more about manipulation of the people through electoral technology than they are expressions of the "will of the people."

 

Given all these considerations, the question of which regimes deserve the honorific label "democratic" remains open. One may wonder if "free and fair" elections are a sufficient condition for democracy. What if the candidate selection process is flawed, as in our American primary systems? What if elections are heavily influenced by big money and criminalized elites as they are, at least to some extent, in the former Soviet republics, or in the boss-dominated politics of earlier stages of American democracy?

 

On the other hand, it seems odd to label such leaders as Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenka (Belarus) "undemocratic." Despite whatever falsification of elections has taken place, independent polls show them to have continually maintained remarkable approval ratings for over ten years. True, the regimes over which these preside are fraught with serious imperfections.  Protection of civil liberties, media freedom, in these countries could stand improvement.  But what about the strong, sustained popular support? 

 

For further reflections, see my article, "The Rise of the People and the Uselessness of 'Democracy' as a Research Concept," currently being revised for publication http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1449705