In the field of politics, democracy enjoys a wide-ranging acceptance. Even in countries, which are clearly ruled in a totalitarian manner, are imitating democratic procedures, especially parliamentary elections. In fact, democracy is a flexible thing, which can be fashioned in Accordance with different needs and expectations. One version, the procedural democracy, appears to claim, that the Shift from oligarchy to the power of the many needs nothing more than a Common acceptance of certain values and procedures, written in constitution. Consequently, the implementation of democracy needs nothing more than a common agreement. Recent experiences has shown, that mere declarations do not guarantee the permanence of democracy. Actually, it can be said that a country, which over-emphasizes the outlook of democracy, especially the importance of free elections, is in danger to develop into quasi-democracy, where nothing else matters but the majority. Less important is, how the majority was achieved. A close relative to procedural democracy is the market democracy, supported by economic liberals, and especially neo-liberals of today. They both seem to have an ambivalent relation to democracy. On the one hand, the whole idea of free enterprise is closely connected with the individual right to participate in politics. On the other hand, Democratic organs may try to regulate the markets, which is strictly against the original neoliberal standpoint. According to the economic liberalism, true democracy guarantees the freedom of enterprise. Even the democratic decision-making is described as a particular manifestation of free markets where ideas are loaned, sold, and bought. In accordance with selling political ideas comes political marketing. On the other hand, increased campaign budgets is a threat to the original idea of procedural democracy. It is suspected that the owning class is able to dictate the main lines of governmental policy in similar way as it did in the middle of 19th century. The leftist solution to the dilemma of uneven participation is the radical restructuring of ownership. Seen from the socialist point of view, true democracy could be achieved only in a society where decision-making is not hampered by financial manipulation of the ruling class. Thus, undistorted democracy is possible only in socialist system. What we get is a socialist democracy. The fourth approach, the communicative democracy, is not so much interested in the theoretical, but the practical meaning of democracy. It has evolved gradually during the last three hundred years, or even more. The main idea is that the solution of social problems for example poverty, morbidity, criminality - demands formal education, new skills, and common effort. It is difficult to conceive a democracy without people who are able to behave as democrats. The main idea of the proposed symposium is to discuss the mutual relationship between education and democracy. The key questions are: Is it possible to find a common ground for democratic education? Are different conceptions of democracy equally reasonable? Are there any other forms of democracy? And finally, what forms should the democratic pedagogy take?