What Americans Don't Understand About Democracy Abroad
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- Why US attempts to export or nurture democracy abroad so often fail.
Stuff to read: Tocqueville! : amzn.to/3WbRuAb
amzn.to/3Y2oFZv
Check me out at shurkin.substack.com/
michaelshurkin.com
/ michaelshurkin
/ michael-shurkin-ph-d-1...
No country that has gerrymandering, voter suppression, and an electoral college system that delivers results against the popular vote has any right to lecture others about democracy.
You forgot bribary, forcing religieus rules on others, racism and taking voting rights away from millions of people.
Don't forget well organized, completely out-in-open lobbying, ie legalized bribes....
Some of us (Canada, the UK) have first past the post which is as bad. In the last two elections here in Canada the party that won the most votes lost the election.
@@Steelmage99 Of the legislative and the Judicial system. Its almost as if they set themselves up to fail.
@@WLDB First past the post isnt good, but it certainly in itself isnt the worst way of doing things.
America never wanted to export "democracy" really, it wanted to export its brand of capitalism.
They never wanted democracy, they wanted client states.
Exactly. Like England waffling on about Christianity while it exported feudal hypercapitalism.
@@eh1702 And then abolished slavery.
@@MartijnHover America only wanted to import other peoples money
The American Dream Is Financial, Not Moral.
America has no idea what a modern liberal democracy is. Please sort yourselves out before lecturing others.
Just watch which kind of presidents and elections they have in the US and you realize that democracy doesn't work there. Everybody is completely oposed to eachother and unable to work together.
America isn't doing the lecturing, one man is who is being critical of his own government.
@@user-re9mp2nh5e well we do have a lecture like video we’ve just watched, most Americans will be happy to lecture the rest of the world, potentially even themselves, about how the American democracy is the best in the world. The American everything is the best in the world. American exceptionalism is the best in the world.
So, in general the Americans are the ones lecturing, it’s considered a birthright (which looks a lot like imperialism). 🤷♀️
@@msam2357 Trust me bro
@@user-re9mp2nh5e They are lecturing every time they wave silly flags, chant USA and claim to be everybody's role model. FSM weeps, how many times have we heard that canard?
Most Americans understand little about anything abroad
That is not true. A huge population of Americans are immigrants or the children of immigrants so we were born and have lived abroad. So this statement is just typical broad stroke stereotyping I constantly see from Europeans who think they understand " American " culture but only know the internet and hollywood representation. If you are American, change states, they are all extremely different. As for myself, I was born abroad and have lived in 4 countries and 18 states. The Americans around me are very diverse and understand the cultures and governments of many countries from Asia, Africa, South America and Europe. This guy is talking about the self serving super affluent politicians in government, who for the most part are out of touch with just about everyone.
@@docrob5320 Which is why so many Americans (US americans) seem to think Europe is a country rather than a continent with over FIFTY different countries, languages, customs.
Come to that most don't appear to have ever heard of the United Kingdom, they think England is the only country in the British Isles.
@@docrob5320 I’m not European, but my origin doesn’t matter
Wherever people … or their parents/grandparents come from - the American education system and media is so focused on the US.
In any other country, you hear so much more about the rest of the world.
So I’m not criticising Americans, it’s the systems that provide the information
@@docrob5320 Hmmm...sure ? And yet, give a map to anyone and tell them where is France, 90% will point the finger at Brazil....the american citizen has no clue about the outside world.
Or at home.
As someone from Norway, the US definfing itself as THE "exemplar democracy" is just such a surreal thing, even though I've heard it countless times(from Americans ofc). Looking at the different metrics of a functional democracy, the US falls behind on so many aspects it is equal parts laughable and sad.
The US has never been a real democracy, and considering how warped a view most Americans seem to have of what a democracy actually is, I am not sure it ever will!?
I think unless there is an actually honest introspection and conversation between the citizens of the US, of how their country is truly run, it seems those in power have too strong a hold both over the people, the media, the culture and the institutions to ever be changed.
And even if there was some kind of popular uprising/"draining of the swamp"/etc, I am not sure most Americans realize how much they would have to change as a nation and culture to actually create a "land of the free", nor if they would even be willing to?
Well said
That’s like my American friends who tell me as a Canadian we don’t have a Democracy because we still have a monarch as head of state.
@@RobOfTheNorth2001 I dont see the comparison here? We have a monarch too, as many European countries have, or more precisely we are a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.
I was going to write out a lenghty reply, but I would rather direct you to google "Democratic index" and you can look at the metrics and evalutions for yourself.
But yeah, there is a reason why the US is listed as a "flawed democracy" by just about any study. Anglosphere in general not exactly being topping the lists....
@@AreEia That's my point, my US friends claim Canada cannot be a democracy because of the monarchy. They are wrong.
@@RobOfTheNorth2001 Oh ok, I understand what you mean then. Sorry for the confusion :)
Let's just leave it at "Americans don't understand".
"Americans don't want to understand."
@@WhiteCamry They're not capable of understanding.
Make that "Not enough Americans understand"
@@ThW5 No, I said what I meant. You don't understand the secondary effects. We have had a bellyful of your nonsense as a Nation.
@@JelMainAnd you are wrong... I don't know what your "we" and "your" are, but you either have my nationality wrong, or you are as totalitarian as Trump.
Naive optimists and cynics really are a terrible combination.
Americans have so little idea what makes democracy work that they're in danger of losing it themselves.
Like the countless number of Americans I've come across online who believe being in a constant state of war against other countries is an act of democracy. Far too many Americans like authoritarianism, not democracy.
It's a "World of Truman" thing.
Everything became virtualized.
USA is not a Democracy. You have no idea what you are talking about.
To Americans democracy is a definition question, democracy is defined as what the US is, so the US can't be in danger of losing its democracy by definition and countries that do things differently can't be democracies because they don't resemble the US.
@@JerehmiaBoaz
I'm American. I'll clear this up for you.
USA is not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. The word "democracy" is not mentioned in our Constitution.
We have a lot of losers here that want USA to be socialist. They are the ones that keep saying that USA is a Democracy. USA is not a Democracy.
The idea of America spreading liberal democracy is as ludicrous as a kindergartener running a University.
What we now have is universities behaving like children, both the students and professors. THESE are the sorts of people who are INDEED a danger to democracy, liberal or otherwise.
Such people behave precisely contrary to the way in which a democracy should function -
Well, you can have a kindergartener saying they want to run an university. Wanting to spread democracy or saying that you want it and doing it are different things.
It is true many, too many, confuse democracy with voting rather than self-governing and that does not work.
Worked in Japan and korea
@@rangerpritchard7546 It doesn't work unless there are city councils, PTAs, and the tribe covers the whole country. Voting alone is not enough. The people have to have experience in some level of self-government.
I live in Australia. For my entire 57 years I’ve had the U.S. version of democracy stuffed in my ears. American was the greatest democracy on earth and there was no other alternative. Internationally no one ever believed this to be the case and it has taken just one man to prove us right.
Oh, do you mean Joe Biden? Did Joe Biden demonstrate that Democracy in America is the "greatest"? If that's true, then I want proof of how Biden has "improved" my situation as an American citizen. Trump was the complete opposite, and he achieved one hell of a lot for the average citizen. That's just a very simple FACT -
I'll take our Australian system of democracy over americans any day. Compulsory voting might be a bit of a pain at times, but at least it means it's run by an impartial government department, voting is made as accessible as possible for everyone & the few times a politician has tried gerrymandered their district it's been discovered & they've resigned.
Yeah, there's been a long-standing debate about whether presidential style democracies or parliamentary, responsible-government type democracies are better. I confess I've sometimes denigrated the US President as an elected monarch, but the SCOTUS just made that a fact.
WRONG, it is not US version but UK version!!! About the same thing, but you got it from the UK not the US!
@@ArthurvanH0udt What are you talking about?
What they don't understand is that most are better than the American version.
Ha, ha, I made the same comment, almost word for word 3 weeks after yours:
"Mostly, they can't understand why it works better than theirs."
I’ve read a few comments and I see that it seems a lot have said what I am about to say.
I was born in England and moved here in my 30s. That was just before Reagan got elected.
I made a big effort to understand America but some things have always baffled me.
The first, and major item, is that the US is insanely cruel. Look at its prison system, its use of the death penalty, and its extensive use of solitary confinement.
Additionally, punishment is meted out largely along racial lines. Obviously no democratic society would be so inherently nasty. Nor would it deliberately want to make healthcare unavailable to so many of its citizens.
But then I looked at the electoral system. Voter suppression and Gerrymandering are rampant. Some states are so gerrymandered such that statewide offices are held by Democrats but the legislatures are comprised of veto proof Republican majorities. Wisconsin and North Carolina come to mind.
The electoral system for president is nothing short of bizarre. It’s almost unheard of these days for a Republican, even if they are elected, to win the popular vote.
You also have these bizarre things called Primaries. Oddly enough, they were an attempt to democratize the selection of candidates, but instead they have done the opposite. The primaries are run by the states which means that the state has to keep a record of the party affiliation of every citizen. The first rule of any democracy is that the government has no business inquiring about or keeping a record of a citizen’s political affiliation. The very existence of primaries means that the election cannot be democratic. All that voter information is public which, at a minimum, enables gerrymandering. In a second Trump term it could lead to widespread assassination of Democrats.
Why not abandon the Electoral College and embrace ranked choice voting, as an example.
Finally, Americans are brainwashed into believing they are free when the reality is the US typically ranks in the high 20s on subjects like freedom, liberty etc..
The notion that the US would lecture anyone on democracy is facially absurd.
I have always seen the USA as having a very medieval society. It seems to make understanding them so much easier.
I quite agree and add this - how can judges, especially Supreme Court judges - be appointed through nominations by political functionaries and confirmed by political functionaries - the President and the Senate? Obviously they will resemble a political body functioning on ideology rather than law.
Atypical of an American... This guy can't recall a simple date which would seem to be one every American should know?! He stated, "I don't know, was it 1786...?"
Um, no, surely 1776...?! And I'm English, y'know, one of those countries "across the pond"?! 😏🏴♥️🇬🇧🌝🖖🖖
Spot on. I would never live in the US again.
@@brigidsingleton1596 The constitution was not formulated in 1776, you are mistaking the Declaration of Independence for the Constitution which was written later.
Right! Oftentimes the US erroneously thinks it is a democracy and others need to be lectured by a country constantly planting the illusion into it's citizens that they live in the best country on earth. Take a look at yourselves, guys, and clean up your political and societal mess, before speaking up again.
You are referring to the wealthy in America because the vast majority of us have no say in how America presents itself to the rest of the world. The wealthy set the agenda. America hasn't been a democracy in a long while. A poisonous oligarchy is closer to the actuality. The vast majority of us are upper class poor to poverty flattened. We are really nothing more than drones to be mined for taxes, so the wealthy can use that tax power to push the poisonous oligarchy onto other peoples in hopes of adding them to the drone population.
What is really annoying are ppl who will say we are not a democracy we are a republic. That really is a thing you just have to walk away from. I wouldn’t care what the US government does if it didn’t interfere in so many countries. I just wish same as you that they would take a look at the issues in their own country. When you have the filibuster, gerrymandering and voter suppression on steroids.
@@dianacasey6002 You got it right: The "we are a republic" twist is absolute BS. No matter which form of government, what it needs to come down to is, that a government is there to care for the people, not for an ideology.
USA is the greatest nation to ever exist. 100% true!
But you need to stop calling us a "democracy"! We are a Constitutional Republic.
@@imperialmotoring3789 Hope your joking, because if not I would hate to see the worst nation if US is the best. God help us all.
Funny thing is that for me, living in a real democracy where every vote counts, the USA has a poor democratic system.
When you live in a Red state, your blue vote goes lost and the other way around.
And all of this gerrymandering being done in states is wildly undemocratic.
The votes which DON'T count are those which are cast illegally by illegal aliens -
Technically the 'American Revolution' was not a revolution. A revolution has to change the existing government in order to be a revolution, and the British government was not affected in any fundamental way by events in North America. In Britain we call it the 'American War of Independence', which is much more accurate, it was a successful rebellion and secession, not a revolution.
good point. however, from the US p.o.v they changed the existing [form of] government. they 'revolted' against the British crown and its system and removed both from the equation.
Had we not been at war with the French at the time things may have been a bit different.
@@embreis2257 Then kept it. Each state retained it's existing administration and then added an imperial president, who still has more powers than George 3. By then the monarch was already a figurehead with little power. The idiot was the aristocratic but elected Prime Minister (not a term then in use) Lord North. The arrogant North made all the (bad) decisions.
@@woolyimage France only really got involved later, after the battle of Saratoga. French support was however crucial to the americans winning the war.
@@kimwit1307 lol I wasn’t speaking about the skirmish in the colonies I was speaking about the rather larger conflict ongoing between Britain and France at the time. Had this not been going on the resources that could have been brought to bear would have been significantly more and would likely have resulted in a different outcome at that time.
An elderly American relative of mine once shared a meme opposing reform of the Electoral College, pointing out that if you reformed the EC it would mean that all the horrible people on the East and West coasts would have more influence on the country. She was somewhat miffed when I reflected that she didn't live in The Home of Democracy if a handful of people in the midwest had the same political voice as millions in California. She, like America itself it has always appeared to us foreigners, likes Democracy only in so far as it resembles and enables what she herself wants the world to be like.
If she had the strength of her convictions, she'd have agreed that no, America _wasn't_ particularly democratic, and that was in fact a _good_ thing, contributing to its people being free (well, relatively).
That elderly relative is one of the wilfully ignorant dragging America into a cesspool simply because they believe something rather make the effort of knowing something. Plus, some wealthy white men decided they wanted white males to re-gain total supremacy, so they spent billions to ensure that complacent stupidity displayed by the elderly relative to be the main feature of millions of Americans.
You fail to understand that we are a Constitutional Republic. That prohibits one state from telling a smaller state what to do. But you Europeans are not known for being intelligent.
@@ShankarSivarajan Uh... no. If you don't have a meaningful say in your own governance, whether because you've been deliberately gerrymandered into an electorate where your vote will never count, or because you life in a state where your vote will never affect the electoral college, or because your state's government has passed rules making it hard-to-impossible for you to have the right ID to vote. That is not 'free'. That's a kind of oppression. One of the principles underpinning democracy is that you personally have a meaningful voice in your governance, which includes a fair electoral system that gives you a say in who will govern you, but also a voice and a say in that governance itself. The trouble with these 'America is a republic not a democracy!' types (other than that they are wrong) is that they are advocating for a system that privileges the voice of one group over another. The privileged group might feel 'free', but the disempowered group, who have no meaningful say in their representation, will certainly not.
@@Alister222222 Not being able to impose your will on others doesn't make you less free.
I would also argue that Democracy American style is not the best form of democracy to copy. The way political parties can gerrymander electoral districts is shameful. The electoral college can warp the popular vote to the point that a presidential candidate can win the popular vote by millions of votes but still lose the election. The fact that each state runs federal & presidential elections and can create barriers with voter suppression laws. There is no impartial, non-political electoral commission to run elections. The way both parties fight to appoint "their" supreme court judges rather than have an impartial supreme court. All these elements contribute to the fact that America is not a true democracy, rather it is a flawed democracy.
The "popular vote" very specifically doesn't matter, because it leads to a misbalance of power. The American Government has safeguards built in to prevent this. The USA is not a simple democracy. That's how the popular vote works, which leads to a misbalance of power. The USA is a Constitutional Republic, something the Democrats make every effort to DESTROY -
Plutocracy? Democratic dictatorship?
I Agree completely. The American system bears no relationship to a true democracy. To say that it is flawed is the understatement of the century. It is actually A government of the people, by the the billionaires, for the billionaires. Voter suppression laws should be repealed and the electoral colleges dispensed with.
I also have a problem with electing judges at the county and state level.
@@nzlemming And Attorneys-General. It's a recipe for corruption.
The title would be more appropriate as "What US Americans don't understand about democracy",
Why do you need to be like this? Everyone understands the spirit of the title. No one thinks of Canadians or Mexicans as americans let alone anyone in South America. Stop being Eugene Snorkelbender and get back to living.
@@photografiq_presents US Americans and others assuming that when you say "America" you mean the US is a level of arrogance and narcissim that should be criticized. It`s not beningn, it very much reflects how the US sees themselves as the only important nation to exist, that they claim the word for two whole continents for themselves.
@@photografiq_presents " No one thinks of Canadians or Mexicans as americans "
That's totally unfounded.
USA is not the same place as America. Many outside USA understand this.
@@anthill1510 Well said, I've often made similar statements. USA hasn't even come up with a collective noun for its citizens, instead, appropriating a general term 'Americans" for themselves. It's breathtakingly arrogant.
But pointing it out to them is largely pointless. I just make sure to always use the accurate term "USA", and for the collective noun "USAsians" "USAmericans" or a couple of other terms that, although commonly used, to write would risk UA-cam deleting my comment. They seem rather sensitive to frank criticism of the Exceptional Nation.
@photografiq_presents and unsurprisingly you totally missed the point of the original comment... the absence of "abroad".
Rather than "exporting" democracy - of which the US has too little - it should consider importing some.
When you have an ex President who thinks he is above the law, then how can that be some kind of democracy.
Everything is about making money in the US, and nothing about social welfare for all citizens, which is what a true democracy is about.
I have heard arguments by people who should know that the American Constitution was formulated by people who actually feared the people, who believed that government was the sole prerogative of the moneyed and landed classes. This way of looking at the Constitution suggests that, from a democratic point of view, it is deeply flawed and should be revised, or at least reviewed for fitness of purpose.
IMO this is one of the reasons America ended up being run by a narcissistic crook for four years. Lessons need to be learned.
@@bobjohnbowles All countries end up being run by the wealthy for the wealthy, including Britain.
The last thing they want is true people power.
When you call someone above the law just because you do not like him it makes you look foolish.
USA is not a democracy, and USA will never be a Socialist nation.
God Bless America!
Yes, well=being is good.
@@richardsheehan6983 Free stuff is unconstitutional.
The US is a plutocracy, where vested interests buy enough politicians to get the policies they want. What do citizens want? They might prefer updated and well maintained infrastructure, affordable healthcare?
A plutocracy verging on kleptocracy.
Jealous much?
God Bless America!
Hey stupid, the USA is a democratic Republic, not a plutocracy.
We get the politics we want by electing the candidates of our choice.
I want free healthcare, and free everything. But SANE citizens know this is an impossibility.
Guess what? I'm SANE. We must all live within our means, and NOT depend upon government for the things we can be doing for ourselves, and absolutely CAN do for ourselves. This covers a huge territory.
Mr imperialmotoring needs to understand that he is a nationalist. That, of course, comes in many flavours.
@@user-vl2qz7cn5v We spell it "flavors" here Princess.
What is wrong with being a Nationalist? Should I be an open borders Internationalist? What if I don't want to be a loser Internatinal Socialist?
USA First! Everyone else can petition their governments with grievances
I would argue that a lot of America’s current political problems also come from this same combination of factors.
Because Americans naively believe that democracy is a natural situation (rather than a fragile thing that must be nurtured and protected from harm), their attitude to things like a dictatorial regime taking control of the country is “it can’t happen here”… which is incredibly dangerous when there are people openly discussing their desire to ensure that happens.
"What Americans Don't Understand". Virtually everything.
True enough ... but ONLY those Americans on the POLITICAL LEFT - the idiot Democrats -
On the other hand, Republicans typically comprehend quite a bit MORE than Dems do.
For example, we understand QUITE clearly that Democrats have delivered the worst of everything over the last half century or so - bar none.
This is one of the very few Americans who appreciate the fact that the world does not revolve around the US. kudo's
Yet he royally misses the point... just as nearly everyone has pointed in the comments...
Cornerstone of democracy is having more than two options, forcing politicans into changing coalitions, the winner takes it all is dangerous.
And politicans shall work for the people not for companies.
Someone who worked for the CIA talking about how the US exports or nurtures democracy abroad. Me laughing in Iran 1953, Nicaragua 1954 and Chile 1973... 😂😂🤣
That's just what i wanted to say. They always forget, how much instability their actions caused especially in these regions: Iran, Afghanistan , Irak leading to IS leading to the refugee crisis in Europe in 2015 . . .
When nine supreme court justices have more power than hundreds of representatives, how can that be a democracy?
It's not democracy, the founding of the US is based on the fundamental right of the individual, the supreme court exist as a check on the power of both the legislative and executive branch to protect those fundamental rights from the whims of democracy; that is why people say "its not a democracy its a republic". The fundamental rights of a free man must lay supreme to the will of the masses to prevent the tyranny of the masses. This little tidbit is also why people say "the US is the greatest country on earth".
How is it democracy when you have monarch.
@@mikeloughnane5436 The UK has a Monarchy and a Democracy.
I didn’t hear you complaining when Roe V Wade created quasi bench legislation.
@@someoneelse9271 What kind of hearing aid do you use? Maybe it's broken?
I've said for a couple of decades that the US mistakes the icing, the elections and the offices and the ceremonies etc, for the cake. One can quickly spread icing on a cardboard form and make it look like a cake but it's not at all the same thing. Baking the cake, building a proper structure for the icing, is much more difficult and takes much longer.
Good analogy.
Ha!! Like the analogy. The one I use is the difference between a wedding and a marriage. The number of people that I know that have spent a fortune in time, effort and money on their weddings thinking that it will make them happy. The ceremony is only for a few days. If they put the effort into reaching consensus and making the marriage go forwards together it is a much better investment.
The democracy index of 2023 shows USA and Isreal at 29 and 30 respectively. Why would anyone that far down the list be so arrogant and pretentious to offer any advice on the subject, and why would anyone want to take the flawed advice from a broken and cracked system.
They wouldn't...the usa has been a shame for a long time, it is/was similiar to the british empire and is currently in process of failing.
@@murraymadness4674 when the Empire was going a bit wobbly,, it failed gracefully. but the US empire, won't
You completely missed the point of his video. I assume that his accent enraged you to point you didn't listen to what he said
It’s like asking the governor of Louisiana how to run schools and organize educations. Place 49 among US states if you didn’t know! 🤦♂️
@@andyf4292they sure didn't in the case of Northern Ireland.
Americans never understood Australian democracy, but when it came to developing a new constitution for Japan, they copied most of the Australian constitution.
No. They really didn't. The history of it is well documented and "copying the Australian constitution" was not any part of it. Read the history on wikipedia if you want.
I'm from NZ, and _I_ don't understand how your guys' Senate works. I mean, you re-elect the House of Representatives every three years, but only _half_ the Senate?
@@GoranXII It’s to help keep the Senate as the house of review, to not have one party in an election dominating both houses. It works, and sometimes it doesn’t work, but the idea is that it’s not a rubber stamp for the government.
@@GoranXIIother countries do that too, I'd say renewing only half of the houses (causing some political inertia) is the most common thing worldwide.
Most Americans have little idea how democracy works at home, can't expect them to understand it abroad
European here... 30 years working for US companies. NOT ONCE I met a coworker who actually knew the details of their own effing electoral system... and some, when finally got the explanation were proud that the coast cities would not have the same electoral weight per vote...
At this point it is hardly the place of the US to proclaim they are a model of democracy worth emulating...
The American concept of democracy is so shallow. Democracy requires strong separation of powers, and deep cultural traditions, not just voting. All these are interdependent and take generations to develop. In the US the focus is on voting but voting was implemented in a simplistic and unstable way, and the separation of powers is weak also. Its no surprise that US attempts to foster democracy elsewhere have foundered and that its own democracy is teetering on the brink of collapse.
One of the things I'm amazed about in the US is politicians talking about active court cases and giving their opinions. Here (NZ) no politician will ever talk about a case before the courts in case it is seen as interference in the court system. Directly criticising judges is also a no-no, although after the fact they can disagree with the outcome. But always with the proviso that they accept the decision of the courts. But in the US judges are politicians who get elected or they're appointed based on political ideology.
There are other ways of constructing working democratic institutions. For example, the Westminster system focuses power in the hands of the Executive, who also sit in the legislature. Indeed, by definition, they're the leaders of the group commanding a majority in the legislature. They are responsible to the parliament (which is what is meant by the term 'responsible government'), and can be turfed from power if they lose the confidence of the parliament. A key feature of this system is that when the Executive acts, there are very clear lines of responsibility: they can't blame bad outcomes on a hostile Senate or an unmanageable House of Reps or a rogue Supreme Court. They're responsible. Full. Stop.
People have argued for years which is better, but I don't really care. I'm just pointing out a very significant difference, and one that's caused a lot of confusion and misunderstanding between Americans and Brits over the years.
It depends how you define democracy. If you take the standard American definition, doing whateverAmerica wants, then there will always be sad disappointments.
That’s not democracy, that’s being the boss all over the world.
lol, so right. "Democracy" of other countries means you have leaders that do what corporate america wants, which is what usa leaders do. We have elections, if they really mattered, they would not be allowed. Russia has elections, when you control how can be on the ballot, the election is meaningless. Same for China, they have elections too.
As the republicans/trump find they can't win elections, they make sure anyone who won't vote for them, are not allowed to vote. See Florida. Plus we have an electoral college for president selection, not a "democracy' at all.
Ex presidents should stay ex presidents.
You know nothing about my nation, the greatest nation ever, the USA.
What s-hole nation are you in sweetie?
But even if you take other democratic countries as the template, the people that's a part of whatever democracy still need to understand how and why it should work and also actually want it to work. If America really wanted to spread democracy all over the world, they would do as this guy says and start grassroots movements and ideologies and support them. That would also mean the eventual democracy would fit better to the local population rather than templated from another place. I'm Danish, but I don't think Danish democracy would work in the US, even if I think we have a more democratic government. If I just.. conquered the USA and said "This is how we do democracy now" probably some people would see it and agree, but the vast majority would still resent it and only see the parts that don't fit. Instead, it would be much better to introduce the ideas and talk up the positives and have the USA itself choose which parts it can use.
tl:dr it's not about the "American definition" but about any definition at all. The point still stands that you need a culture to receive the idea first.
Hi Mr. Shurkin.
I am Danish. Have you ever thought about the Scandinavian model? We went direct from Dictatorship (King) to democracy, and it basically worked from day one. None of the Scandinavian countries had a bloody revolution.
The three countries are among the most stable countries, and it is with a very detailed democracy.
Have a nice summer.
Point taken. May I suggest that you cast your gaze westward from Denmark. There lies the UK. While in many ways very different from your Scandinavian Model, consider its similarities with the Westminster Model. Long, slow evolution into a constitutional monarchy that draws much of its strength from what it learned on that journey. I offer this observation as a Canadian who believes that our system works, as does yours.
I suggest that the US is well on its way to being a failed departure from the Westminster Model. Their political and legal system simply does not work and they don’t realize that. That is the fundamental reason they cannot export it. Pity.
@@bunkerhill4854 The British system is rubbish, maybe even worse than the US.
First, the House of Lords are unelected and the Church have permanent seats, as in Iran. Borris even put in a son of a Russian KGB officer!! Lord of Siberia. I am not kidding.
This government want to send refugees to Rwanda. First, the supreme court stopped it, because it is not a safe country, according to international organisations. Then the government just made a law, that said, it is a safe country. Then the court can't use it again.
In the House of Commons, Borris and Sunak are lying BIG time on the stand. So much, it is embarrassing on my side of the North Sea. The problem is that you can't call them out for lying, if you do, you will get thrown out of Parliament. I think it was Dawn Butler that did it anyway, yes she was thrown out for a period.
Don't forget the corruption. The Tories don't even hide anymore. In the US, they at least try to hide it.
What I have written here is easily verifiable.
Have a nice summer
The Viking areas I've been to, often have traditional meeting places for parliamentary assemblies.
Maybe you should consider that it was the continental feudal concepts which were an alien aberration and there was a retention of ideas of liberty, as English expectations on kings did not give them unlimited power.
The Germanic tribes and Danelaw merged to form England as a kingdom, so you may be under estimating the cultural ideas.
The Norman occupation was an absolute disaster with large areas of the north being laid waste for decades due to resistance.
It was after the parliamentarian civil war against Charles I, then a period of theocratic puritanical rule, that Charles II was invited back and began a more enlightened and liberal direction. Possibly a correction after experiencing the horrors of power concentration to a few despots.
Sweden has a tradition of local governance and remain strong today. That's true of Denmark, and Norway, as well. One Swedish historian said of Sweden that if you scratch the surface you find the egalitarian farmer society. I don't know how true this is, but it has been said that egalitarianism is the religion of Sweden. It's at least false in the sense that we don't have a religion.
Sweden didn't go from dictatorship to democracy. Like most (all?) nations without a revolution, the transition was gradual. King Adolf Frederick (1710 - 1771) had no interest in ruling the country and left it for the parliament. His successor was the opposite and was essentially an absolute ruler by the time he died.
@@RobBCactive Our freedom from the King has nothing to do with Vikings, it is much later.
I will strongly recommend this video: How Denmark invented Social Democracy
Don't let the title fool you. It is very much Scandinavia and Germany, Austria and Spain this video is about.
No, it is NOT propaganda for DK. This video is made by a German guy.
It is very educational, enjoy.
Americans improperly conflate democracy with liberalism. This mistake cuts in both causal directions. First, democracy is a mechanism of collective decision-making. In the absence of institutions that protect individual rights, and a developed economy, political competition will emerge along social cleavages of culture and religion - people will politically sort on the basis of identity, not class interest or ideologically by left and right. For example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda etc. Second, development and economic liberalism are not causally related to democratic elections and popular government. For example, China and Russia both have free markets without political freedom. Capitalism, it seems, is perfectly compatible with authoritarianism.
These two mistakes represent the seed of failure for American foreign policy since WW2. These false assumptions were derived from national ideological myths that served to justify the structure of American society. They are becoming unravelled as American society polarizes by identity more than class, while at the same time risks descending into capitalist authoritarianism.
Good point re the conflation of democracy and liberalism. If history is any guide, classical liberals ally with popular movements against authoritarian privilege until property rights are threatened, then they throw in with the authoritarians to put down the popular movements. When push comes to shove they value freedom and property - THEIR freedom to dispose of THEIR property - well above any principle of general democracy. The anti-democratic measures enacted in the US constitution are shining examples of this principle.
Very well stated!
You cannot impose democracy, it requires choice.🤔
Yes Choice by the people not the politicians.
Like most Americans you confuse English with British. Paradoxically this supports your theory that Americans don’t understand other democracies.
Didn't notice that and I live in Scotland! Time stamp?
And yes it's incredible who globally ignorant American's are, even in accademia. An inward looking self interested nation that has all it wants has zero need to look out, other than making sure they maintain the cheap resources to prop up their privilege. A military force as large as the next 7 nations and 700 bases over 80 nations helps maintain their privilege.
England ruled Scotland and Ireland, even after the Acts Of Union, and the colonies were all created BY England (after the Unification, they ruled by the population overwhelmingly being English, as well as the economy). The only “British” that came to the colonies were Scottish army officers; towards the end of control by the Hanoverians, some Scottish people immigrated to the colonies, but not as many as were there, when they moved. Thus, the mainly Lowlander Scottish moved to (and across) the frontier, where they were out of the way.
Please show how, when, where, why or in what aspect the United States of America is more Scottish, Welsh, or even Irish or Breton than England at the time. If it is not non-English but British in that way, English is the better word.
@@davidweihe6052 You've forgotten the Irish. Much of the British Army was Irish.
And you all forget the Dutch influences on New York (Nieuw Amsterdam) culture in terms of ideas regarding equality and democratic governance, the declaration of independence being almost a carbon copy of the Dutch declaration of independence, but hey. What’s new… Let’s just pretend only the Bill of Rights mattered.
The electoral district system was based on the British system and that is far from democratic as every British election where minorities get absolute majorities continuous to showcase.
Unfortunately, this combination of ignorance and arrogance has led to a great many tragedies and international disasters, I strongly favour bringing American leaders to book in these cases.
The UK became a full democracy in 1928, broadened later with 18 year olds getting the vote in 1969. An historic struggle going back centuries.
Is the US is really democratic. The electoral college seems pretty undemocratic. A two party system is almost as undemocratic as one party system. As far as any US being able to influence democratic system is that thinking is always US centric .
EIU's Democracy Index classifies USA as a "flawed democracy", giving it a (slightly inflated I think) score of 7.85 out of 10 and ranking it as no. 29 among the 167 countries it evaluates. In other words, when it comes to democracy USA is far from the worst in the world but it's not exactly an example to follow either.
the question is the first one to ask. The power of lobbies , the corporate financing of the political life, the efforts to limit voting ( on one side) makes me think that the US are far from an ideal democracy
I don't think it's wrong for a government to put the interests of the country first. But the American government
isn't concerned about the interests of the USA, they are concerned about the interests of multimillion dollar companies, controlling women's wombs, sustaining systemic and systematic racism and sexism and promoting a segregated community with a very small elite group of rich and super rich and an overwhelming majority of people struggling to make end meets.
@@jlsimonableof course you are right about these points, but most Americans show extreme complacency, taking the imperfect but improvable constitutional democratic republic for granted.
Those who saw both fascist and communist countries in Europe, are far less sanguine about an entrenched liberal democratic consensus.
In particular one party is following a playbook to justify and impose an illiberal system, whether it'll be oligarchic, sadopopulist or a full blown kleptocracy is unclear.
@@williamgeardener2509agreed, lobby & donor power has tilted democracy for people into a near oligarchy.
There was a conscious long-term strategy employed by wealthy corporate activists to buy influence.
Scandinavia has a strong democratic tradition. The archaeologists say that Sweden was a proto-democracy already in the 5th century AD, where they elected their kings. In Nordic countries, money has nothing to do with free elections.
The Later Saxon Kings were largely elected by the Witan sitting in the Witenagemot.
Politically appointed judges. I rest my case.
I remember discussing with some American friends the US intervention very shortly after its beginning. They were mostly veterans and were very proud that they were “bringing democracy” to Afghanistan. My response was, “So what?” They were completely dumbfounded. I explained to them that Afghanistan had no history of democratic government and that the average Afganistani would not know a democracy if it jumped up and bit him in the face. He was far more interested in having a real roof over his head, some food on the table and not being in danger of being shot when venturing outside. My American friends just could not get it through their heads that democracy might not be the first priority in that war-torn country.
I agree. Ironically perhaps, one of the most stable eras in Afghanistan, was when they were occupied by the Soviets: women's rights and education rose exponentially and basic social infrastructure was modernised. The US-backed Taliban put an end to that.
Britain was inching towards democracy for hundreds of years before America broke from Britain. America inherited English Common Law, which had already been developed gradually over centuries.
Britain and Europe are more social democracy than liberal democracy, but as an American I guess he can't use that word. The US model of liberal democracy is not appealing.
America inherited far more than Common Law from England. The American system of government is almost a carbon copy of the Westminster model, with a few names changes here and there, i.e. House of Representatives = House of Commons. Near enough every aspect of American government and law that Americans think makes them unique in the world were largely inherited from England, including the idea of free speech guaranteed by law.
Besides that, the US declaration of independence is basically a copy of the Dutch declaration of 1648.
@@gw7624 I agree to to some degree, there were two additional factors in US political development that made it quite different.
As a former judge of the American supreme court said the revolution the founders were faced with establishing legitimacy separate from the previous historical/cultural traditions. This meant mythologising the revolution, its leaders and the consitution. It has resulted in the near diefying of the founders and the constitution becoming holy. Debates are held not on the validity of the question being discussed but on what the founders thought and then validating an argument based on an interpetation of the constitution. THis is typically not true in many democracies particularly those based on the Westminister models that evolved rather than were abrupt changes. In my country Canada I have never heard arguments based on what some founder stated or may have thought in regard to things from abortion to taxes, the arguments stand alone. As with most constitutions the US one is difficult to change which has resulted in women not be recognized in the constitution as persons. In Westminster parliments and similar they are considered to evolve while the American system tends to be frozen by its constitution.
Secondly the constitution of the US reflects the thoughts of the Eurpean progressive movement of its time. This usually was reflected in limits on what governments could do along with institutional separation of powers, given that most European governments of the time were monarchies. In the US it also reflected the interests of the wealthy and influential along with the colonial state structure. The constitution only narrowly missed including absolute property rights. While not completely true the more modern Canadian constitution has this almost inverted. The rights of individuals are absolute unless the government law can proove an overwhelming public good. In a sense the government must plead its case to over ride these rights to the supreme court. So in Canada you can have laws that restrict hate speach because it is considered freedom to lie to incite hatred of a group is not as important as the effects of hate speech.
Those differences are very much part of the American political culture.
@@georgeshaw6374libertarian democracy definitely is not.
Part of the issue, is that America is not really that developed a democracy itself.
For a democracy to work, the citizens must be educated, committed, and empowered.
That says it all, in a nutshell.
"I love the poorly educated."
- Donald Trump
How does it feel to be involved in so many mistakes that caused so much damage to other countries?
Referring to Eighteenth century American or English political culture as "Liberal Democratic" tells us why, to this day, US democracy is still a work in progress. It was only in 1965 that the majority of African Americans got a de facto right to vote and today, in much of the old "Liberal Democratic" Jim Crow States, those rights are being restricted.
The so-called "democracy" of both England and the nascent US in the Eighteenth century was, at best, an oligarchy, where the vote was overwhelmingly restricted to Wealthy, privileged White Men, who, by and large, despised EVERYONE who wasn't Wealthy, privileged, White and Male. Maddison wrote about Freedom while watching his Slaves being flogged. Washington kept his Slaves away from his plantation for limited periods in case they got any ideas about liberation. And Jefferson, who wrote that "All men are created equal" had no problem raping and fathering children with his Black African slaves.
Meanwhile, "Liberal Democratic" England had so many Rotten and Pocket Boroughs in the Eighteenth century that it took a number of Reform Acts to enable even Middle Class men to vote; these Acts happening long after the foundation of the US. Similarly Catholics had their voting rights restricted until 1828 and the same Act that allowed Catholics the right to vote simultaneously increased the wealth restrictions on all potential voters.
Finally, England only allowed universal Male suffrage in 1918, the same election they first allowed some, and only some Women voting rights...
Beginning from the lie that the US and England had a "long democratic tradition" in the Eighteenth century denies the reality that the US, while PREACHING democracy to the rest of the Planet, has only rarely and for incredibly short periods, actually been a practicing democracy...
@michaelodonnell824: Most people are willfully ignorant of the details of that history because they get in the way of simplistic notions of democracy and exceptionalism.
@@dpeasehead And arguably that may be why at least one of the large political parties in the US is so willing to dump democracy, or at least limit it to only those they consider "deserve" the right to vote (ie people like themselves)...
@@michaelodonnell824 My issue with American "democracy," in other words, with the interchangeable party state in which two similar parties take turns in office serving the same people and marginalizing the same people is that one of them is ALWAYS openly anti-black, a fact which pundits in the US and elsewhere ALL seem to ignore as if it is normal and completely acceptable.
As decades pass, the two parties take turns playing that role, but it is always being played by one or the other. The allegedly more moderate party always find "reasons" and excuses NOT to protect black people from the excesses and hostile legislation pushed by the so called opposition.
Note that there is no permanent openly anti woman, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-native American, anti-Irish, etc. political party in the US. That would be unacceptable. But having one party which is always promising to enforce and to maintain the racial hierarchy has been normalized.
That alone means that the current system cannot be reformed because those who are not being targeted by the anti-black party benefit from having it rigging the system in their favor.
@@dpeasehead I agree with your overall comment.
I would, however, point out that the overtly "Racist" party too often gets electoral majorities. This would tend to indicate that a Majority of "Ordinary Decent (White) Americans" are deeply committed to the Racist policies and rhetoric espoused by the Racist party.
Which leads to a very uncomfortable question for both White and Black US citizens - Why? Why do so many White Americans vote against their own interests simply to be Racist?
And How? How can Black and Brown Americans live and work with their White fellow citizens KNOWING that in the privacy of the voting booth, they will usually vote for the most Racist option?
One issue about democracy abroad is the contradiction between the American political culture and the American interest. A democracy means the government encompasses the characteristics of its people. A democracy means the government must promote its national interests. Neither is the same as the United States. But the US expects those democracies to behave like Americans and promote American interests.
This contradiction has its best example in Iran, in the 1950s. Iran's national interest was to own and control its own oil industry. That was in direct opposite of American interest. The result? The US overthrew the democratic government of Iran and install the Shah.
A less dramatic example is Turkey. For decades, the Turkish military stood behind the scene to support or undermine governments, to impose a secular society. When democracy came, Turkey changed to reflect its people and became a more Islamic society. Did the US like it?
German and Japan, especially Japan, are exceptions. They were defeated, occupied countries. The Japanese did not even write their own constitution. But the imposed democracies were not heavy burden, and sweetened by gifts of economic prosperity. This combination provided the time for democracy to take root in those two countries.
The failure of the US to understand alternative approaches to democracy starts with 'Exceptionalism' and the absurd notion of 'Leader of The Free World '. If that 'Free World ' is made up self determined nation states and electoral systems of self determined Publics then the notion of a singular 'Global Leader in the form of the office of the American Presidency is not only contradiction in terms but absurd. The US has convinced itself that it not only invented democracy but all of its accompanying rights and institutions such as; liberalism, individual rights, the Republic and even the notion of democracy itself etc..... It did not. American created the 1st practical application of a democratic constitution on a national scale. That's it. An incredible achievement in and of itself but one has to recognise the evolution of these ideas and their variations according to cultural, social, political and geographical setting.
Perfectly illustrated. American exceptionalism is like a cancer in the American mind one that is increasingly eating away at it’s flesh. Bones are starting to show.
Exactly. The Americans would never be able to contemplate that the world’s first democracy with a constitution for universal suffrage and representation was the Australian one.
@@seanlander9321 And New Zealand before that.
@@shauntempley9757 New Zealand didn’t get universal representation until 1919 and still doesn’t have a constitution.
@@seanlander9321 It actually did not. The government was founded far earlier.
After all, it gave women the right to vote in 1894, after all.
That 1919 date, is when NZ became a Dominion, and got full control of it's affairs, except its currency, although the British could still call on it when it needed.
Contrary to popular belief, it has a written constitution in the Maori version of The Treaty Of Waitangi. The Magna Carta, and The Bill Of Human Rights are the other ones, but the Treaty comes first, and the other two titled I have mentioned are underpinned by it.
I think i agree with a lot of that. Americans i talk to often can't understand or even have a concept of "not america" in general and "not America as they fantasize it" in particular. They uniformly don't understand tribal or religious power structures, instead worrying with a model of atomic individuality, which is a high irony.
Democracy is not a system, it’s a culture. In order to create democracy the culture needs to change first, which can take many decades.
Not all Democracies are governed the same. Some are for the People and others are for the politicans.
@@maryjeanjones7569 the democracy for politicians is called dictatorship.
It takes generations.
@@AndrewBlucher yes it takes generations to create democracy, but it takelaar few years to destroy it. So be aware of the one who is selfish and self centered and is not willing to cooperate or even listen to his opponents, this one will destroy democracy.
And the US showed that it's really easy to destroy democracy take Iran for example
Two lessons for US politicians to learn:
1) Don't mess with other countries' internal affairs.
2) You cannot impose a political system on a nation successfully.
Do you honestly believe that the USA was in Afghanistan to “help”? Are you that ignorant?
They were there to prevent the country from becoming communist, and in order to achieve this they backed up the Taliban.
A bit ironic hearing an American postulating about democracy.
Democracy is labour intensive and it requires high quality skills. I worked in Zambia 15 years after independence and developed a huge admiration for my African peers. At independence, they had a had a terrible scarcity of people with an education beyond primary.
We take for granted an executive government, elected chambers with a governing coalition and a loyal opposition. This is backed up by an independent judiciary and public service. Outside that circle, you find another layer, professional bodies, local authorities, unions... Zambia didn’t have anywhere enough people to staff a fraction of these roles.
"One man, one vote, one time." This was the derisive dismissal of African government expressed by many "whites."
Zambia was poor and the dependence on family and tribal networks was natural. Thus, the first election delivered power to one group led by His Excellency Kenneth Kaunda. He had to develop a system of governance in a very difficult context. Even a relatively menial government job represented an island of economic security in a shifting sea. Thus, those with secure employment became obligated to support their extended families. The easiest way to do that was through a form of patronage. Wholly understandable.
Now, spread that environment across a whole nation. Add an election that might put a new group in power. The incumbents face immediate impoverishment. The country must lose too because the skills the outgoing group have acquired must be relearned.
No, democracy is a very fragile flower. Does America have a democratic future? Probably not. Except for the elite, school funding appears to be sourced locally. If that is the case, poor communities will have disadvantaged schools. This must entrench disadvantage and an experience of life closer to caricature African impoverishment than the TV representation of American plenty. Change is impossible because of the written constitution and a coterie of power groups narrowly pursuing their short-term interests.
As an Australian, I see three equally ugly alternatives (1) continue to ally with a fractured America, (2) find an accommodation with resurgent China, or (3) get our own independent nuclear deterrent. None are appealing, but an unreliable ally is more dangerous than an enemy with whom you nonetheless share certain core interests.
So you're china's boy?
@@DanBeech-ht7sw oh please. An answer on the same level as one of the former US presidents basing foreign policy on who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys".
@@RJM56 I'm reducing your statement to the bare essentials. You are making an argument to become part of china's hegemony
@@DanBeech-ht7sw Oh grow up!
@@hamishstewart5188 was there something incorrect about my inference?
Murricans fink two politickle parties is plenty. Real democracies disagree.
''We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty'' Ed Murrow
''“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” Edward R. Murrow
This is what Americans don't understand about Democracy. Democracy is not really a legal system, although in a large way it is. It is not merely a philosophy, although plenty of books have been written about it, and it's fairly well documented what kind of society one expects Democracy to be.
Democracy is a culture. Albeit a political culture. Thus, just as it is nearly impossible to impose upon a society a culture from without, it is almost impossible to impose a culture. You can only make a country a democracy, in the case of Germany and Japan, if it already has that culture beforehand. Inasmuch as the most successful democracies (for the last 100 years, I don't know about the future) are Western, it's because many Western countries have the culture that meshes well with the culture of Democracy.
Since it is a culture, it is worthwhile to compare that culture with a political culture from another part of the world: Confucianism. It is very unlike democracy, but it is something that is also moralistic and prescriptive, and it behooves people to conduct their business of government in a certain manner. People think that the opposite of democracy is dictatorship. That is not true. The opposite of democracy is the lack of a political / civic culture. Many societies in East Asia seem to do just fine with or without democracy, because they can fall back on the Confucian values that are ingrained over centuries to work. For example, South Korea under martial law, Taiwan under martial law, China under the CCP, Singapore under the first Lee. These were high functioning societies that didn't need democracy for civic values to exist. (NB this is my point of view from the vantage point of Singapore, a city which has democratic structures and a Confucian culture).
It's only the societies that neither have democracy or Confucianism that are in big trouble - the dictatorship / communist leninist states / banana republics of the western imagination.
So the hard truth about democracy is, firstly that since it is a culture, it is something that needs decades to build up. The US managed to do that during the colonial days, which is why the American Republic was a success. If you don't do that to the Afghanistans of the world (and I don't really know how you'd go about doing that) then they will fail. And if you allow the US to backslide and lose the virtues that made the republic a success in the first place, you will, as Ben Franklin says, not keep the republic.
Secondly, it's possible that the country already has a working alternative to democracy. So countries in East Asia might find it possible (it is almost never easy) to adopt democracy in addition to the already existing culture. And sometimes it's just not a harmonious match.
Third, since democracy is a culture, thus imposing democracy is imposing western culture. It's not easy to change the culture of a country. It could well end in tears. In a few instances, it shouldn't actually be done. And in all cases, it should never be done without trying to understand the culture of government that already exists in a country beforehand (and that's why when the US went into Iraq and fired all the civil servants, that was the stupidest way to start off the Iraq occupation.)
It works for us, so it should work for everyone is a common mistake made by ‘conquerors.’ Soviet, Chinese and western social systems are different as are the expectations of their people.
7 mins and 51 seconds into this video about the need for a liberal context within which a democracy must sit in order to become legitimate and referring to the 100s of years of democracy on which US democacry was built there is still 1. No acknowledgment of slavery and that a huge proportion of the 'liberal democracy' weren't even people never mind citizens (they didn't even get the full legal rights until the 1960s and needed extra law in order to be able to make use of their voting rights0. 2. women were not allowed to vote 3. often you needed to be landed people to be able to vote 4. the electoral college (with a racist history) so it is not in effect one person one vote - still plagues the US liberal 'democracy' that you suggest was relatively easy to create/legitimate.
The point about liberal democratic tradition is it changes and can evolve as people seek to perfect it. It can progress or regress but the fundamental principles argue for universal suffrage.
Now Lincoln's Republicans fought the civil war against the plantation slavery system, because it was against Christian morals and generally impoverishes the general working population.
That the reconstruction was thwarted and southern states imposed a white supremacy system, is down to failings of human nature.
Could you please suggest alternative forms of government that have a better historical track record?
Fundamentally your desire for an acknowledgement of past wrongs is misplaced, this video is about why it is hard to establish liberal democracy, not a treatise on the short and violent history of the USA, which also involved a genocide of indigenous peoples who you ignored, fixating instead on the shameful use of slaves.
BTW there was also racism and bigotry against Chinese, discrimination against Catholics and also anti-Semitism.
All of those evils can occur in democracies.
It is important to acknowledge these aspects because it better contextualises the rest of the video. Without the discussion about the problematic nature of the US's own march towards 'a more perfect union' the challenges facing countries like Afghanistan appear as a contrast between civilised liberalism and a 'barbaric sharia' state. Decontextualising your history just makes the video appear unsophisticated. Many people would not consider states that stop many of its citizens from voting as a democracy - this is why such concepts are contexted. Consider the arguments in play about the Israeli state. PS please do add other groups such as indigenous people, Jewish people, Chinese people and Catholics to my list -that was made up of women, the poor, African Americans before and after slavery. It adds to rather than diminshes my argument.
Friuli, the region, once country, where I live and where my family lived for the last 600 years, was born as a democracy way before France.
It was born Avril 3rd, 1077.
Rougly 700 years prior the US.
Since that time to almost the years of Napoleon and the "democratic revolution" of France and Europe, Friuli was a republic held by the "Parliament Furlan" or "Furlan Parliament".
After the Roman senate, it probably was one of the oldest republican and democratic institutions of the world.
First Americans should understand the value of true democracy at home
We haven’t gotten democracy in the USA yet, so why do you think we can help others develop democracy elsewhere?
As long as a system does not entail ‘one person one vote’ with proportional representation then in my view it is not a full democracy.
Exactly
Party list style pr isn't democracy either. It gives far too much patronage to party leaders and is inherently biased against independent candidates.
STV in single member constituencies is the best system where the candidate elected is acceptable to most of the electors.
PR allows fringe nutters with 5% of the vote who are utter anathema to the vast majority to have power.
What America needs is a legal system which is independent from politics. When the person in charge of prosecutions is appointed be politicians as are the judges then who holds the Politicians to account.
Not just America, any system without an independent legal system will descend into autocracy, as the US is about to find out.
This is a sound analysis! Could also mention that Russia is a failed democracy because not enough time was given to allow the effects of a properly educated younger generation to take hold. The transition from "communism" was much too hasty. By the way, having a constitutional monarchy can actually strengthen democracy in a country. Just look at northern Europe.
Ironically, Russia would be a more effective democracy if they had retained workers' councils (soviets) no longer under communist control.
America is not a democracy. It's a contrastocracy which is something very different. A democracy consists of at least 3 political parties that represent the demographic layout of the population. A contrastocracy fails this rule of thumb as the layout of any country is far more complex than can be represented by a 2 party system. In a contrastocracy you are either for something or against something. This can't happen in a democracy as in a democracy parties never oppose each others ideas 180°. In a democracy there are always 3 or more possibilities. A democracy is based upon 1 or more parties forming a majority while a contrastocracy is based on the absolute rule of 1 party. A democracy is based on cooperation. A contrastocracy is based on polarisation. Do not humiliate others by pretending you are a democracy while you fail its most basic principles.
I live in a tiny country in the middle of europe. We have elections coming up and I am finding it difficult to choose. Not because we only have 2 parties and I feel unrepresented but because we have so many that I need to take my time to figure out which one best suits my needs. Ofcourse I will vote for the one that supports Ukraine the most. But then that is what you get when you live in a democracy. You start to care about others and don't play games with other people's lives.
Hopefully America realizes its own slide towards a fascist state. America is like a teenager with boundless conviction & certainty - it needs more people like Mr Shurkin shouting "look around you" from the rooftops ..
Thank you so much. This is such an important conversation, the one the none reflective, spoiled, greater USA will never seriously have with itself. The US's meddling around the globe under the banner of freedom and democracy has been so destructive, the present smashing of Gaza is directly linked to US misguided exceptionalism. The USA has a military complex as large as the next 7 nations, with 700 bases in 80 nations ... what pray tell is democratic about that!? Every US government is the one who has raised the most funding ... what pray tell is democratic about that!? I see the US as a teenager, constantly smashing around, entitled and self interested ... we hope the US grows up sooner than later, and becomes the nation it thinks it is.
The best way to learn is by doing . No one said that it is an easy process to establish a democracy within a regressive cultural environment .
I think what you fail to understand is that the UK is not and has never been a democracy. We have a voting system which is the least democratic system that exists. It is only democratic in the sense that everyone gets a vote. It results in governments which do not reflect the wishes of the people. For example, there has only been one government since the 1930s which enjoyed the support of more than 50% of the popular vote. We also have the biggest unelected chamber, the House of Lords, outside of the communist party assembly in China. Add to that an unelected Head of State and you should see that it is anything but democratic. Also, typically for an American, you fail to understand that the terms England and UK are not interchangeable. If you can't understand something as simple as this its no wonder that the US makes so many mistakes with its foreign policies.
This person doesn't understand the reason for this form of democrayc; i.e. responsable democracy. Responsable democracy is not based on the ideas of political parties; even though with the way media covers elections; this is what we are led to believe. Members of parliament are elected to respresent the citizens of their riding (electoral region) and that is all!! They are not sent to parliament to represent a political party! In this system the head of government (prime minister) is not elected directly, but is selected by the members of parliament and can only remain prime minister with the support of parliament. Today this generally means the leader of the political party having the most members of parliament but it doesn't have to be this way. In fact there are a few parliaments where there are no political parties!
This discourse is occurring in the background of an assumption: that liberal democracy is the model for human political development, and every people of the world should be helped to attain this state that western countries have already attained, and perhaps these western countries should serve as models to be emulated.
That this discourse is occurring at a time western societies are experiencing profound schism accompanied by the most demonic impulses of fascism not seen since WW2, that little or no analysis is being made about how this is a structural feature of liberal democracy says a lot about western intellectual arrogance and a cancer that is a general sense of superiority that has afflicted the west for so long.
Western Intellectual elites should be worried more about how liberal democracy can evolve beyond its destructive elements to a stage where it actually works for western societies. The west with its liberal democracy is in as much political and social crisis as the most authoritarian societies.
What are those, 'most demonic impulses of fascism' ?
I suspect the answer depends on where you sit politically.
No, Michael was focused on the topic of the favorable pre-conditions for a democracy to be established, why the idealistic apparently obviously better governance fails when there are opportunists aspiring to monetize governing for the benefit of themselves and their supporters. It's why Gorbachev's reforms were doomed, a culture of corrupt party bosses will seek to maximise their personal advantage not self-sacrifice by willingly letting go of power.
It is a matter of record that the USA & allies sought to "nation build" and he's communicating the reasons why this ultimately failed. It's a recognition that power is limited, so your assertion is fallacious.
The problem that is evident to historians, that your prejudice blinds you to, is that illiberal states struggle with changes of ruler. This leads to instability and because illiberal regimes bend the law and promote injustice they cannot lose power for fear of retribution. See Ceausescu of communist Romania who like the last Russian Czar was shot after a military tribunal.
In my life, people from illiberal countries have left them for the liberal democracy you criticise, while only a tiny lunatic fringe or exposed spies travel the other way. When you talk to people with knowledge of the kind of regimes you might espouse, you hear what disrespect of rights and corruption means, even if you are foolish enough to expect to be a beneficiary, like an upstart Roman emperor they'll be plenty seeking to take it from you, no peaceful restful retirement or freedom to pursue happiness. You choose a cage, one which leads to tyrannical leaders and mad adventures like Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Democracy gave us WW2, the war om terror (by some measures comparable to WW2) and now seems to give us WW3 . Einstein believed democracy was a bad idea. In my view, we really need a realistic debate about governance.
But a Liberal democracy is the direct opposite of fascism.
The US is not a Liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination.
It is run by powerful extremely wealthy oligarchs, who own the banks, Federal Reserve , and arms corporations.
And half the politicians are in their pockets.
@@ellengran6814 how did Democracy 'give us WW2' ?
Is the problem that America tries to export the wrong kind of democracy? The British had more luck exporting the Westminster style of democracy to their former colonies, many of these such as India, Malaysia and Kenya did not have an underlying democratic culture. Several of these former colonies are countries drawn up in the colonial era, so they also lack a degree of social cohesion. Despite these difficulties, many former British colonies have strong democracies and have resisted the decline into authoritarianism.
As others have mentioned, American democracy is severely constrained by the Constitution and it is vulnerable to the arbiters of the Constitution being political appointees. The separation of the executive from the judiciary and a flexible “constitution” are great strengths of Westminster style of democracies allowing them to both adapt to local conditions and resist authoritarianism.
That is a good point about British colonies being forced to have a democracy and it 'seems' it was more successful, but maybe in truth it was not. The british slaughtered a lot of people that didn't agree with them. So maybe you can impose a democracy once you kill everyone that doesn't want one?
@@murraymadness4674that’s a pretty weak argument. India was a peaceful handover (the violence of partition came after) as was Malaysia. If you compare what happened in British African colonies with the French, Belgium or Portuguese colonies, post independence democracy is definitely inversely proportional to violence…
Thanks for a good video!
The basic problem: Americans, and to a lesser degree Europeans, assume that everybody thinks like them.
Simply, where ever religion is strong, democracy is weak.
Try the Hare-Clarke electoral system as we do in Tasmania, multimember electorates with compulsory, preferential voting. From here it looks like the USA has a very shoddy democracy.
Simple systems for a simple people.
Let me make a few points some in agreeance, some not.
1) you are absolutely correct that democracies cannot exist without a culture underneath that supports it. Where the community understands what a democracy is, what the potential benefits are and how to support it. How elections are run is amongst the least important elements, though some form of election is required. Constitutions are important however in setting an agreed upon power structure.
2) the public in the US doesn't just understand what nurtures democracies, it no longer understand democracy in any real sense. Common misconceptions include majority rules, being able to vote for a president directly, being able to attract the most donors, freedom, no monarch.
3) historically when the US has attempted to impose a democracy, its interest in doing so is secondary to having a government installed that matches US interests. It is rarely interested in what the country in question actually wants, particularly if it is antagonistic to the US
4) So many mistakes in Afghanistan. You've listed some of them. One of the biggest not directly mentioned, but inferred, is the lack of genuine communication between the US forces and the general public, or crudely a lack of free speech. If you are imposing a form of government on the population that requires their involvement for it to work you need to have a method of open communication to find out what they are willing to do to support that structure and what they understand. And you need to take the risk that the answer is not one you wanted to hear.
5) you are correct that in order to move the world to better democracy populations need to be prepped first with an understanding of what it is and the benefits. In the US's case it might be a good idea to test run that at home first. You are also correct that the cultural shift towards a democracy takes time. In Afghanistan's case the best solution in terms of the form of government, would have been one of a limited democracy, and one not imposed from the outside, but one based on pre-existing cultural structures.
I understand that comprehending the situation requires intelligence.
Right now someone should bring democracy and civilization back to America.
"The World Series" (telling of how Americans think)
Wrong! It was named after The World newspaper that sponsored the baseball tournament.
@@zetectic7968 That is true, but a growing number of Americans don't know this ...
Thank you for your take on this. In my opinion "Americans not understanding something" is a deeply rooted societal problem with the USA. People get shoved the idea of american exceptionalism down their brains so many times a lot of people really believe it. I've some american coworkers, smart people, that can't fathom how far behind and infantile the USA is in so many things. It's not just democracy. It's workers rights. Basic education. Infrastructure. The USA is basically a plutocracy where some rich folks buy their way into politics. It's pretty far from anything resembling a real democracy.
I find it funny that when people are discussing the start of democracy england and france are named but arguably one of the first democracies the Netherlands is not
So nothing to do with oil and resources? Good to know!
Come down to New Zealand and Australia to see democracy working
There are disturbing signs that US political operations are beginning to creep in there too.
Right off the bat, you have not defined the word, "Democracy," but you apply it to the US government, which is not a democracy, or even vaguely democratic (much less liberal!). The colonies were not, "Democratic," they were just an open aristocracy in that any white male of the appropriate religious beliefs and sufficient wealth could purchase property, which was required to vote.
Less than 2% of the population voted in the 1788 Election, and property qualifications to vote were only relaxed as elite control over propaganda (newspapers) and the two-party system became institutionalized, to limit the acceptable scope of discourse and restrict political options tailored to the whims of the powerful.
What you are discussing our attempt to spread, then, is Kleptocratic Oligarchy claiming popular support through ceaseless propaganda... and so the relevant question is not, "Why are we failing to spread this mode of governance around the world?" but, "Why are we supporting this system, at home?"
Word!
Now then take heed! The Political Culture of the US is dropping like a stone!
I stumbled on your channel. When someone makes good use of Tocqueville, including L'ancien régime et la révolution, it is very difficult to go wrong! I am now a subscriber.
It is a persistent illusion that the US population came from England, and brought 'democracy' from England.
Most people came from other European countries, and even those who came from England were not very supportive of how thing were done there, and that's the reason why they left. So the US was populated by rebels who were unacceptable in their home country, and had to figure out how to exist together in a livable society.
At that point leaders were looking for 'universal' values that were shared by a large majority, values based on ideals not on reality, a strive, not something that was present in daily life.
I disagree. The foundations of American political culture are ALL English imports, perhaps if only because English immigrants tended to dominate elites compared to, say, German immigrants, who might in fact have been more numerous.
@@michaelshurkin613 The US declaration of Independence is almost a one on one copy of the 'Acte van Verlatinghe', the Dutch declaration of 1581.
The US Constitution is based on the trias politica by Machiavelli.
Even the 'Bill of Rights' is not based on English law from before 1688. The British rights from 1689 did not come from England, but were imported.
The UK had, and still has, a low level of democracy. A powerful central government that leaves little space for local self governing.
Only recently Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got their own, limited, parliaments.
The US structures are far more based on Swiss, Dutch, German city states, where citizens were represented in local authorities. Where merchants ruled instead of nobility like in England.
And even the French Revolution was brewing in Europe long before it happened.
The mindset at the start of the US wasn't that of the English Barons, but of those longing for freedom all over Europe.
The 13 colonies before the revolution were effectively British. The mass immigration began AFTER independence, and the political system was already in place
@@DanBeech-ht7sw Do you know who founded New York?
@eljanrimsa5843 new Amsterdam, you mean. Yes, but by the time of the revolution it was British
What do you actually want to say? Do you mean by 'liberal democracy' that a country subjugates its political power to the USA and its economy to the interests of US capital? In that case, you're actually talking about neocolonialism and that's what current US foreign policy is about. Of course, there will always be countries, democratic or less democratic, that resist that, as we can see very clearly today.
As a Hungarian, I just couldn't agree more.
That is exactly the cause of much friction between the EU and the US. That the US cannot accept or understand, that the EUs function is to serve the interests of the member countries, NOT to be a supplicant to the US.
Great analysis. Thank you so much for this insight. I have been asking myself some of these same questions for some time, but didn't have the knowledge and background to come up with real answers.
Australia has its AEC: The Australian Electoral Commission. Please look it up. It is a blueprint for democracy.
America has a long history of supporting military junta, authoritarian one-party states and despots throughout the world. It was often criticized for that kind of hypocritical behavior. Now the critics trash America for nurturing democracy abroad.
You didn't watch the video. That aside, the United States still props up militants. And the democratization has been ridiculous. Afghanistan was pretty simple, unlike Iraq. The Afghans hate the Taliban. Or at least they did in 2001. But the Americans behaved in such a way that they made the Taliban look like the better alternative and were generally hated by the time they left. The Taliban originally came to power largely as a response to the pedophilia practiced by the warlords we in the west call the Mujahideen. The Afghan people welcomed the Taliban in the 1990s because of it.
From Wikipedia: _The Afghan custom of bacha bazi, a form of pederastic sexual slavery and pedophilia which is traditionally practiced in various provinces of Afghanistan, was also forbidden under the six-year rule of the Taliban régime.[344] Under the rule of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, bacha bazi, a form of child sexual abuse between older men and young adolescent "dancing boys", has carried the death penalty.[345][346]_
_The practice remained illegal during the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's rule, but the laws were seldom enforced against powerful offenders and police had reportedly been complicit in related crimes.[347][348][349][350] A controversy arose during the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's rule, after allegations surfaced that US government forces in Afghanistan after the invasion of the country deliberately ignored bacha bazi.[351] The US military responded by claiming the abuse was largely the responsibility of the "local Afghan government".[352] The Taliban has criticized the US role in the abuse of Afghan children._
Only in the West do people think pedophilia is preferable to Islamic puritanism. Nobody can forget the hypocrisy of Western media when the US left Afghanistan. Media pundits were crying about Afghan girls no longer being allowed to go to school, while having been silent on boys being raped for two decades.
Well the Germans remain grateful to the USA for the western allies imposed basic law and a federal constitution.
Personally I don't know any Japanese but they don't agitate for a return of militarist government which overthrow their first modernizing liberal democracy.
The USSR occupied countries are similar extremely opposed to further re-imposition of totalitarian regimes favourable to Russia. Of course there are some Quisling oligarchs, who follow Vladolf's blue print and seek to retain power as dictators while stealing the wealth of their nations
@@RobBCactive Germany was also run by old Nazis until the end of the 1960s. The Nazi homosexual laws were in place until 1969.
Only 42 Japanese war criminals were sentenced because the US sabotaged the trials. That's the very reason for the war crime denial in Japan today. The fascist war criminals wrote the history. And Japan is a basket case. Don't try to make this into an anti-Japan thing. I'm no weebo, but I do have a fascination with things Japanese.
@@grisflyt you're basically just making accusations ignoring the destruction of the Nazi state.
You're defaming many Germans too, a country which by the late 60's faced up to and repudiated the horrors.
Shame on you!
History is not merely written by one group, the self serving accounts of Wehrmacht generals and people like Albert Speer after he served a jail sentence should be read against factual materials, including the captured records of state.
You're coming across as a Kremlin stooge who's using Chat GPT
The key to democracy is found in the meaning of 'demos' and 'kratos'. It requires a people to have a certain conception of themselves and their relation to each other politically: to become a 'demos', and then for them to exert 'kratos' amongst themselves; as ought to be more obvious, this is quite distinct from the niceties of process. But we can test the extent of a people's democracy, by analysing to what extent they wield 'kratos'. That means power, tangibly and demonstrably. It is not merely a matter of 'demarchy'. We can of course have a 'puppet people' much as a monarchy may have a 'puppet king'.
Anyway, we can see quickly from this starting point that much attempts at 'fostering democracy' fail on both counts, by fixating on niceties of process instead of tangible results, and in fostering loose 'values' instead of a concrete conception of 'the people' as political entity. It is no good to begin at, say, 'rights' before you have established who has the obligation to fulfill them, and *why* they do.
Lastly, I comment on the suggestion that democracy may not be suited to all peoples and all cultures. Although I cannot here explore this murky topic, it is key to observe that democracy was the political creation of a quite distinct people in ancient times, and lay fallow for a very considerable period of time before, its records having been tenuously preserved by monastic scribes, being picked up and dusted off as a political conception *during what was a deliberate exertion attempting to harness the perceived past glory of a great people* by the truly intellectually élite section of society that enacted the Renaissance.
To be sure, the 'seeds' of democracy existed in more primitive prior instances, e.g. the 'moot' and 'thing'. But had the Renaissance not occurred, a specific, mighty effort by a specific, élite subsection of a specific, advanced society for a specific, far-reaching goal, there is no telling whether democracy as we conceive it would have developed in 'the West', let alone anywhere else. For the basic conception is what is crucial. We have the Ancient Greeks to thank for the bedrock of our political science; without that, the conceptions of how men relate to their fellows would be supported by something quite different.
And that points also to what ails US democracy today: there is a demos, yes, but it is severely lacking in kratos - much of the actual power derives not from the people but from the powerful. The influence of the will of the people on what policies the government actually follows is extremely minimal.
This is a serious problem.
One of the effects is the ever-growing number of people who fail to see any candidate they see as worth voting for. Because none of the candidates is expected to do what the people actually want. The kratos is severely lacking.
What Americans don't understand about democracy abroad starts with there being democracy abroad!
Thank you very much for that comment.
At least partly you're confirming what I've been suspecting for a long time already: that there was hardly a reasonable concept and a serious ambition within the US government behind the idea of nation building in Afghanistan.
A big question for me is: could it have had better chances to succeed if the USA had concentrated their efforts on making Afghanistan a success instead of attacking Iraq after military success in Afghanistan?
Would there have been enough political resources to achieve success in Afghanistan for such a transformation?
Afghanistan had been ripped out of its development by the invasion from the USSR and after that fell prey of different war lords fighting each other with incredible cruelty.
One would assume that the population was ready for a fundamental transformation under such circumstances. It really begs the question how could that go so wrong?
04:47 What heck are you saying, England was a liberal and democratic culture?!?! 🤯
First of all, you do know that the pilgrims left England because of religious persecution, right?! 🤷🏻♂️
But what you apparently don't know, is that the pelgrims went to the Netherlands first. And the reason they left the Netherlands to go to the new world was because the Dutch were to liberal for them. 😁
The Dutch settlers broad tolerance to New Amsterdam and America, not the British!
So maybe it's time for you to learn a bit more about American history and the influence of the Dutch! ✌🏼
NLintheUSA
Russell Shorto & Dutch-American Heritage Day
ua-cam.com/video/qc0QZTypnog/v-deo.html
New Netherland Now
Why don't Americans know their own Dutch history? - 1/4
ua-cam.com/video/J-F0-vJqRQ8/v-deo.htmlsi=ZLZb0OKrzLiUYBA6
New Netherland Now
What's left of New Amsterdam in Lower Manhattan - 2/4
ua-cam.com/video/c-UGFyIp6xw/v-deo.htmlsi=MKJP3DbzdK_eemNz
New Netherland Now
A forgotten American founding father: Adriaan van der Donck - 3/4
ua-cam.com/video/PgqaGZgqvGE/v-deo.htmlsi=DzqoSTor21IrDmbU
New Netherland Now
How New Amsterdam influenced America - 4/4
ua-cam.com/video/CsEovGBFAtA/v-deo.htmlsi=8dMmQFDF__bEqYwJ
NLintheUSA
Dutch-American Friendship Day
ua-cam.com/video/BwajnqWECUU/v-deo.html
NLintheUSA
Dutch-American Heritage Day 2021
ua-cam.com/video/P0bg4YKIn_o/v-deo.htmlsi=E_YFPrKqfKGtB6Tq
Geography Geek.
What's Left of New Amsterdam? (And the Origins of the USA)
ua-cam.com/video/s4BpJd8Or80/v-deo.html
Geography Geek.
Why Doesn't the U.S. Know About its Own Dutch Origins?
ua-cam.com/video/MY5QSb35Muo/v-deo.html
Geography Geek.
How the Netherlands Helped America Gain Independence (And How it Cost Them)
ua-cam.com/video/4aXi3lOmICI/v-deo.htmlsi=FfSYNQEahHHfMLCp
Actually, the Pilgrims fled from England because the Monarchy/State/Church of England would not allow them to practise their vile repressive version of Protestantism.
Rhode Island was actually a rebel colony of Massachusetts because of the religious intolerance and autocratic rule of the church in Massachusetts.
Thanks for your video. In your first sentences of the video you made an interesting statement. that US policy tries to export democracy. I have several issues with that. First, it is in clear violation of the UN Charta (the right to self-determination of peoples). Second, even if we leave the compliance with the UN Charta aside, who gave the USA the authority to do so? It is funny of how a country that has many flaws in it is political systems - according to the Economist's Democracy Index the USA has become a flawed democracy - claims to have the right to impose democracy on other countries.Third, it is simple not true that the USA is exporting democracy. The USA is pursuing its interest by many means including government change of foreign countries. They don't "export" democracy to obvious non-democratic countries like Saudi-Arabia if the government of these countries are supporting US interests. The USA has a long history of regime change which included overthrowing democratically elected governments (1952: Operation PBFortune, in Guatemala, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, 1960-1965: Congo-Leopoldville, 1970 to 1973 Project FUBELT, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and Operation Condor, support of the 1976 Argentine coup d'état).
Finally, let's be honest. The regime change activities of the USA are not about democracy but to support the interests of the USA.
The US never understood the meaning of democracy!!!!!
That's because the country was built on controlling humans not on Freedom for humans. Democracy is all about giving your population the right to decide what it wants and needs. America is still living under political control.
After travelling to the USA 🇺🇸. I understand now how the operates and its not a democracy.
A country of mass intimidating of a lot of people in power for their own gain. Whilst telling the masses they are doing it for the good of the population.
I just discovered your channel.
I love it.
Thanks. There's more in the pipeline.
He makes a very strong point about democratic culture. Just take a look at the differences between the US and Canada. The way that we run our democracies have similarities, but there's also huge differences.