The existence of democratic regimes at national level can not conclude that democracy is present, with the same attributes, at subnational territories.
If Robin Dunbar is correct that the cognitive capacity of humans limits us to 250-300 active relationships then participatory democracy is ONLY possible at sub-national, (tribal or clan) level. Many first nations conflict resolution mechanisms (like restorative justice, sentencing circles, and banishment remedies) rely on the community being small enough for such remedies to be viable. Clan level participatory democracies can be corrupted by nepotism and tyranny of the majority.
Once groups outgrow the 250-300 limit, governance must convert from participatory democracy to representative democracy. And that means leaders must run for office (and finance their campaigns). Representative democracies can be corrupted by campaign contributors.
Formal democracy does not ensure substantial democracy regardless of group size or constitutional division. Any system can be subverted by rule breakers.
By a comparative analysis in our real life shows that practically, the meaning of the word, "democracy" in the democratic regimes- concepts has shifted from the original meaning of this vocabulary. Commonly, we refer democracy to a collective meaning of freedom + fairness + awareness, in a society. On the other hand, current regimes manipulate this concept toward a system that runs in a sort of Western flavor, has clean- cut laws for modern and postmodern life-style or standards of West, and has sensitivity to non- Western regime types. Of course, we can not find this definision in any written documents so far, except self experiences.
Con permiso, voy a responder esta pregunta en Castellano. Quizas mi articulo para la Revista del Ministerio de Trabajo en Madrid seria util para responder a esta pregunta.