The USA is the only Democratic Country in the World. Discuss.

[OzzyKP]

My answer: yes.

Here's why:

Lets compare the UK and the US. I think most European governments resemble the UK more than the United States so my critque applies to them too. Their sepperation of powers is extremely weak. They have the House of Lords, the Monarchy, and the House of Commons. Over the years power has beome consentrated solely in the hands of the House of Commons. This is dangerous because ultimately this is an absolutist system.

If the House of Commons decides to cancel free speech who does one turn to protest...well the House of Commons. This one body is the end all and be all of British politics. Sure the MPs are elected by the people, but what if the majority decides to oppress the minority (it has been known to happen) then only a majority in Parliment is needed to make that happen. There are no proceedural safe-guards to stop it.

In the United States however if the people get whipped up in a frenzy and congress passes some outrageous new law (....lets say the Patriot Act) then individuals can appeal the law to the Supreme Court and the Court can unbiasedly (we would hope) decide whether that new law is compatible with the Constitution or not. If it isn't then the law is thrown out.

So a British style parlimentary system is much closer to "pure democracy" and thus very dangerous. In systems like this it is very easy for some populist demogauge to come along and get the people to vote in dictatorship. It is much harder to do in the United States.

A pure democracy is dangerous because the full and ultimate power is the people. Whatever they vote on is law. Majority rule. The country could wake up on Tuesday and decide to make all Guns illegal. Then hold another vote on Thursday and change their mind. Next week a vote could be called and 51% of the population approves a system of enslaving the other 49%. This is pure democracy.

I'd rather not live in a pure democracy like this.

A constitutional republic (and terms vary) like the United States I believe is a more rational system. This system has in place an absolute law which is contained in the Constitution. This is (or ideally should be) the ultimate arbitrer in running the government. There are sacred rights that are very difficult to overturn on a whim like in a pure democracy. Also our system has the incredibly important system of checks and balances and seppertion of powers. These are integral to the stability of our system and I am amazed more countries don't have it.

Not only is the UK autocratic because it only has one body which makes decisions, that one body isn't very democratic. The executive in this system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair in this case. He is in charge of enforcing the law and in most cases he and his cabinet proposes most of the law as well. Between 85% and 97% of what the Prime Minister wants the Prime Minister gets. This my friends is nearly a dictatorship. Why is this?

It is because of the pluarlist (is that right?) system in the UK. Rather than voters voting for an individual candidate they vote for a political party. So the party apperatus decides who gets to be the canidates, and surprise surprize the party picks those people who are the most likely to follow the directions of the party leadership and least likely to think and vote independently.

Now lets say there is an election and Labour gets 51% of the vote (if that would happen), well until the next election the Labour party has a dictatorship over the country. 51% of the MPs are in Labour, and all those MPs were hand picked because they are least likely to disagree with the party leader. Who is the party leader? Well its Tony Blair. (I sure hope i didn't mix up party names) Who does the House of Commons pick for Prime Minister? Well with 51% of the vote, the Labour party picks Tony Blair. So if Tony Blair decides he wants to propose law A, well the very loyal 51% of the parliment votes to approve law A.

I have heard stats that said that around 97% of all laws proposed by Margaret Thatcher were passed into law. Can you imagine that? A dictatorship can be defined as one person making 100% of decisions. In the UK "democracy" one person can make up to 97% of decisions. How the frick is this any different?

Can you imagine 97% of every single piece of legislation proposed by George W. Bush becoming law? That'd be insane!

Now i've only used the UK as my example, because I don't know much else about other "democracies". I think France's cohabitation system is promising, but they are thinking about doing away with it now, ugh. But I'd wager most European governments are similar to the UK model, and most of them aren't much better than tyrannies of the majority, and popularly elected dictators.

Remember folks, democracy is something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[Asher]

Somebody seems to have forgotten about Canada as usual.

[DinoDoc]

It's your stealth nation technology that shields notwithstandingland from most people.

[Il Duce]

THe US system is much more efficient and less autocratic in terms of Domestic agenda, no country could even come close to the balanced representation. But in terms of war policy, the president is the supreme general and gets what they want. When was the last time Congress proteseted a direct military action that the president supported and stopped the war? But I wouldn't live in any other country in this wide world,

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Asher
Somebody seems to have forgotten about Canada as usual.

I admit, I am completely ignorant of the Canadian system of government (and many others). If it is an American system it gets two thumbs up from me. If its a British system, then its not all that great.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher
Somebody seems to have forgotten about Canada as usual.

It's a natural mistake.

[Asher]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I admit, I am completely ignorant of the Canadian system of government (and many others). If it is an American system it gets two thumbs up from me. If its a British system, then its not all that great.

Canada takes the worst parts from both the British and American governments and melds them together, in a typical Canadian fashion.

[- Groucho -]

That is awfully long-winded for a troll.

Tell us how wonderful the US's checks and balances would have worked if one Vermont Senator had not pushed the balance to the Democrats in the Senate and Rehnquist (73), Stevens (81) and O'Connor (71) all retire from the supreme court or simply die after a long stressful life?

Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and Strict Constructionist Supreme Court. Pretty much free reign to do as Bush pleases until the Republicans lose an election.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So a British style parlimentary system is much closer to "pure democracy" and thus very dangerous. In systems like this it is very easy for some populist demogauge to come along and get the people to vote in dictatorship. It is much harder to do in the United States.

How does being closer to "pure democracy" equate to not being democratic?

[Il Duce]

For one party to sweep the election and have friendly justices is rare and as Zell Miller, Lincoln Chaffee, and Jim Jeffords voting with your party does not happen all the time. And also the British system where the House of Commons ensures that it is Autocratic.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Echinda
That is awfully long-winded for a troll.

Tell us how wonderful the US's checks and balances would have worked if one Vermont Senator had not pushed the balance to the Democrats in the Senate and Rehnquist (73), Stevens (81) and O'Connor (71) all retire from the supreme court or simply die after a long stressful life?

Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and Strict Constructionist Supreme Court. Pretty much free reign to do as Bush pleases until the Republicans lose an election.

No, because the Republicans aren't one entity. A Republican Congressmen and Bush might not neccesarily agree. Even it situations historically where one party controlled all institutions of government, there are still often disagreements. In Britain on the other hand, party discipline is much stricter and the PM has a huge amount of authority.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Echinda
Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and Strict Constructionist Supreme Court. Pretty much free reign to do as Bush pleases until the Republicans lose an election.

To be honest this would be close to a political parties worst nightmare. Everything bad that happened until the next election would sit squarely on their shoulders, no way to shrug off the blame. This is probably the ultimate set of checks and balances in our political system.

Of course if everything went perfectly then there is no problem right?

[Boris Godunov]

First, this is a double post from another thread. Tsk.

Second, you contradict yourself. You say the US is the only true Democracy, then point out it isn't a true Democracy. Huh?

The United States is not a Democracy, it's a representative Republic. There are no truly Democratic nations, as true Democracy cannot exist effectively outside of the city-state environment.

Now, is the US the best representative Republic? Debatable, but I think, in the long run, no. I think the hinderances built into the system to meaningful change except through extreme measures will ultimately lead to our stagnation and then decline.

[Lung]

Discuss what? It's blatantly wrong. Ignorance of all things non-american is the usual inspiration for grandiose american claims

In Australia, an entire governmnet was dismissed by their own appointee in the position of Governor-General. So much for no other country having a separation of powers

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
No, because the Republicans aren't one entity. A Republican Congressmen and Bush might not neccesarily agree. Even it situations historically where one party controlled all institutions of government, there are still often disagreements. In Britain on the other hand, party discipline is much stricter and the PM has a huge amount of authority.

The Labour party isn't one entity either. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has his eyes firmly set on the PM's spot on the front bench in the commons. If Blair started acting funny, out come the knives and Blair is a political corpse. Remember, a Prime Minister is not elected to that position. He is merely an MP with the best ministerial portfolio. His own party can take him down. Just look at how Blair's right hand man faired when he started to get uppity. Even Blair couldn't save him from political disaster. The UK system has its own checks and balances that work pretty well, they're just more organic than the US system. And that is one of their strengths.

[Stefu]

What is this mysterious, magical 'constitution' thing? Surelu US must be only country possessing it!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
There are sacred rights that are very difficult to overturn on a whim like in a pure democracy.

So you were not aware of the fact that black men were giving the franchisement in 1870, and then by the 1890's, had the franchisement taken away from them?? Not regaining the franchisement until the 1960's??

You were also not aware that anytime gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are given the same equal rights that heterosexuals have in any state, that it risks being rescinded if the political domination changes in the next four years??

You were also not aware that in our democracy, the institution of the death penalty is entrenched in racism??

[Shi Huangdi]

"The UK system has its own checks and balances that work pretty well, they're just more organic than the US system"

I don't deny that there are some checks and balances in Britain, just that they are alot weaker then in the United States. For one, because the PM must always have a legislative majority, there can never be devided government in almost all instances. In the USA it is much more rare to see a non-devided government. And while Labour is not a single entity, it is alot more closely unified then the Republicans and the democrats. It is true that in Britain there are intra-party rivalries just as they are in the US- but on policy issues Labour is usually more unified. Congress, the same party as the president or not, often has different views on legislation then the president and try to influence the legislation to their likely. Congressmen of a certain party many times side with the opposition on any given vote, which can often decide whether a bill passes or not. In Britain, backbencher revolts do happen, but it is rare that the government's legislation is actually voted down in the commons. Overall, Blair has a much better chance of getting his legislation through the legislature then Bush does.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Il Duce
THe US system is much more efficient

It is?

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Overall, Blair has a much better chance of getting his legislation through the legislature then Bush does.

You make some good points. But, remember, it isn't always Blair's legislation. He may like to think he is, but he isn't a president. If Gordon Brown isn't behind a financial act, Blair would be very hard pressed to get it passed. A big difference between US and UK politics is that in the US, major disagreements happen in front of the cameras. In a parliamentary system, the disputes happen in cabinet or in caucus, so they are not as publicised. But they certainly exist.

[Zkribbler]

America is becoming less democratic and more plutocratic everyday.

It doesn't matter what political label is placed on a politicial if they're all owned by the same clique of corporations.

[Urban Ranger]

How is it democratic when the current US president doesn't even have popular mandate?

[monkspider]

I usually find Ozzy to be a fairly sensible guy, and I generally don't disagree with him on a large number of things, inevitable philosophical differences between a Communist and Librertarion not withstanding.
But come now Ozzy, to declare the US the only democratic nation is a bit much. I am understandably biased on this subject, but the power of corporations and various interest groups on the electoral process in the USA certainly can't be understated. At very least, it must be taken into serious consideration when considering the "freedom" of the United States compared to other countries.

[kolpo]

Not only the USA has build in safety mechanisms. Belgium for example has it also. Every year get many laws canceled and rewriten because the Belgian variant of the supreme court dedices taht they are against the contitution or are paradoxal with other laws(you may not have law A where you forbid having bears and law B where people are given the right to have bears in the same law because that's paradoxal, laws must be clear).

In Belgium would changing anything in the contitution take a long time, mostly longer then the time a government is in charge and it can always until accomplished be canceled. So if the people are really against a proposed consitution change will they vote for the opposition who will then form the next government and cancel the change in constitution. I think it is easier to add amandaments in the US then in Belgium.

But that build in safety mechanism is not undemocratic because they majority of the people like it.

[orange]

well we DID invent democracy

[Dis]

democracy can't be invented

[monkspider]

Technically, democracy was first used by the Athenians, as I'm sure many Greek members of our community will be quick to let you know.

[orange]

we also invented SARCASM

[Ned]

Originally posted by Echinda
That is awfully long-winded for a troll.

Tell us how wonderful the US's checks and balances would have worked if one Vermont Senator had not pushed the balance to the Democrats in the Senate and Rehnquist (73), Stevens (81) and O'Connor (71) all retire from the supreme court or simply die after a long stressful life?

Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and Strict Constructionist Supreme Court. Pretty much free reign to do as Bush pleases until the Republicans lose an election.

Idiot.

[Adalbertus]

Ozzy, you seem to confuse "democracy" and "supposedly most stable system close to a democracy".

So, just to say something different, Switzerland is the most democratic country in the world. They have so many plebiscites that the citizens almost are bored of it.