The problem of the democratic discourse is its ambivalence. On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine a modern state which does not subscribe to the democratic values, and here lies the universality of this notion. On the other hand, democracy is a permanent process which needs to be corrected as it unfolds. But how is it possible to evaluate the success or failure of this transformation? Where is it possible to find the criteria? The Western Enlightenment provides us with two points of reference – freedom and social justice, that present the system of coordinates in which every society can choose the priority values or try to combine them. This process reflects, in general, the democratic paradox as it is understood in many countries, including those of the West as well as the Russian Federation. From this point of view it is not really important whether the local democratic discourse is framed as a part of universal or an original project, the normative dilemma between freedom and social justice still puts this project in the mainstream of the democratic discourse promoted by the West. The other, alternative project can be formulated only in a different normative framework. This is the situation we observe in some countries of Latin America, where the normative dilemma turns the democratic discourse in another direction. This is not a competition of the two projects, both exist in our own space and are addressed to absolutely different audiences. In Latin America the democratic discourse develops around the notions of social justice and equality and is addressed exclusively to the region, in spite of its evident universalist base. On the contrary, the Russian interpretation of democracy, in spite of the idea of sovereignty and uniqueness that points towards particularism, on the contrary is addressed to the global community as a whole.
