If you accept the premise that a true democracy is defined by a government that is "by the people, for the people, of the people", then Western Democracies should be considered utter failures. Particularly in the US, where elections commonly draw less than 50% turnouts, people do not participate in government- at any level.
Democracy should, by most people's agreement, mean that the people rule; that they decide what is best for them; that they mutually agree to behavior that will serve the needs of the greatest number of them; that they will structure their societies in ways that will benefit all. Because our populations far exceed that of ancient Athens, it is simply not feasible to get everyone together and let them yell. In most countries, therefore, a system of elections has been established (and there are a wide variety of electoral programs from a simple 'one-person-one-vote' system to a series of runoff elections where the eventual winner is the last dog standing). However elections are held, we eventually appoint people to represent us and to make those good judgments on our behalf...anybody know where I can find one of those?
This is not to say, of course, that democracy as it is currently practiced should be overthrown. Frankly, there is no realistic or viable alternative. To define what we have as true "democracy", though, would simply serve to continue our self-delusion. As long as money (and those individuals and corporations who possess it) continue to exert undue influence on the political process, "one man, one vote" will be little more than a noble goal.
Of course, the Founding Fathers never took into consideration concepts such as PACs and soft money. This may not be a true democracy, but it is definitely the Golden Rule- he who has the gold, makes the rules. And we are all poorer for it.
