That quotation from Judith Shklar, chosen almost at random, represents a common evaluation of contemporary democracy, though with the overtones of what its critics have come to call the élitist school. I began with it not because I am here concerned either with its descriptive accuracy or with the élitist arguments approving public apathy – I have discussed that elsewhere – but because a preliminary warning seems essential. The equation, democracy = electoral regime, is so strongly entrenched in our culture that a conscious effort to put it wholly aside is required in the study of ancient politics. ‘Electoral regime’ is a completely wrong label for Greece, an inadequate one for Rome. There were elections, and they had their element of ritual, their pretensions and conventions, their apathetic voters. But there were also assemblies with the (at least formal) power of final decision on issues. There was, in short, a measure of genuine popular participation.