Reading the comments, I find no distinction drawn between effective and theoretical Democracy.
The salient points are:-
(1) Specific Constitutional provisons, are meaningless when determining comparison of the "Democracy" of one or other Nation: how a Nation permits or controls their fulfillment in everyday life determines the experience of Government,_not_ the fine phrases.
-The preamble to the Vietnamese Constitution, for example, parallels the U.S. Constitution almost word-for-word.
(2)One party to an American debate (on whether or not the States should set-up a Parliamentary Republic)observed that a Parliament might as easily as any King, abrogate the individual's rights.Still relevant today !
(3)I have long held the view that Democracy _is_ (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) ".....the worst possible system of Government......save for all the others !"
(4)A Democracy may, (provided it's participants labour to ensure it remains so effectively as well as theoretically)posess one peerless quality for those who live under it's Governance: It is capable of betterment without resort to violence and Revolution, as it's Citizens pursue Education and improve their discernment and informedness.

(4) Neither the U.S. nor Cuba, have a claim to represent the Democratic ideal; nor are either exhibiting any sign of of seeking to progress in that direction: both appear satisfied (self-satisfied) with their interpretation. (I speak here of them as Nation States: not for the many individual Citizens of each who might wish for their improvement of their Governance). This said, the U.S. has delivered more in the way of opportunities for advancement of it's Citizens -individually and collectively- than has Cuba.

(5) In respect of this debate; the range of apparent conviction(s) displayed has an odd resonance.
Years ago -In Noumea- I overheard a reference to the late General Charles De Gaulle, in which the speaker alluded to him as "...that leftist syphillitic ...!" Obviously, her footing, politically, was somewhat to the right of that of the late General ! (A former 'Pied Noir', perhaps ?) The conviction was obviously strongly held. Does it stand-up in fact ? It is a little difficult to credit.