Hi. You may remember me from the spring contest, but after a month I was pretty much tired of doing 1 to 2 posts a day (that would require to make me win) and they were starting to be a bit beefed up and fake. But I decided to write a new post: why is the American democracy a relative success while other democratic systems in Eastern Europe and Africa are not as successful?
And I am not measuring success as sound political decisions (I am a critic of Iraq) but rather of the quality of people's lives.
The reason, in my opinion, is morality. No, I am not talking about religious morality, but basically just a willingness of the people to follow the laws of the nation. Cheating on a test and not fastening one's seat belt often go undetected, but most people still do not engage in these behaviors. The most minor acts of law-abiding make society run more smoothly and thus create less domestic conflict. This morality of the nation, in turn, is reflected in the morality of the leaders. For example, it is unthinkable for a president or VP to have served jail time for assault.
In other less stable democracies, people do not care about morality as much, and thus do not look for it as much in their leaders (or such leaders simply do not exist, another reflection of how people rise in social ladders to gain leadership). For example, Yanukovych is now the prime minister of Ukraine (a position equivalent in prestige to the VP in the US), and he came close to winning the presidential elections. Before presidential elections, he served jail time for assault, then rigged the elections (though the other candidate may have faked his poisoning to win more votes and be elected, no one knows for sure). At a later date he became a favorite among the people (who were dissatisfied with the leadership) and was appointed prime minister. I am only talking about Ukraine because of knowledge on the country's politics, but many other countries in and out of Eastern Europe follow similar patterns.
Now, would an assault-committing election-rigging candidate win ever obtain such a position in the U.S.? Probably not.
And as I have said before, morality comes from following the most minor acts of society's rules. If the people do not sneak into movie theaters, it may prompt them to not cheat on their FAFSAs for college, which will strengthen the economy. In turn, they will look for morality in their leadership, and their leaders will reciprocate with following the law.
Just as a warning to America, however, I am going to finish my post that morality, I believe, is independent of religion. It is following the national laws, and when in a position of leadership make laws that the leader woul in turn follow. It is not imposing one's religious and social views on others, claiming that certain acts that bring no harm whatsoever to society are "immoral" (like gay marriage, for example).
Dick Cheyny(?) shot a man. It is unclear if he was drunk at the time. I would hardly call that moral.
In 2000, even if Bush did win Florida, the recount was rigged by his brother, who allowed the recounters to take Thanksgiving off.
I don't think that people in the United States are any different in nature than those anywhere else.
Here's my reason for the relative success of our Government: England had a Democratic aspect to their government long before the colonies were formed. The inipendent colonies, all of which had a good deal of independence from England, chose their leaders in a fairly Democratic fasion. Therefore, when we formed a national government, a Representative Democracy was a natural choice. My point is that the culture of the people has a lot to do with it. A country whose past is very authoritartian, like Iraq, cannot make a sudden leap into a working democratic system. Another good example is Russia. There was never a real Demcratic Government in Russia's past. Now that one has arrived, you wind up with a horrible dictator.
Cheney was already elected. If the fact that he shot a man was brought up in his election campaign, Bush would have to choose someone else.
The post was basically a thought after my parents had been nagging me that I should act more like a Russian/Ukrainian than an American in certain aspects (like sneaking into the JCC gym though I don't have a membership). I stand by the post. Morality brings stability through consistency of lawfulness, but obviously no country in the world is morally perfect (in the case of Florida).
You say most people don't cheat on tests or go without their seat belts. Seat belts - true enough. Cheating is hard to prove but if the truth were available I'd guess it's worse than most people think. But for argument's sake let's go with another road law - the speed limit (what?, you say. it's still around?)
not that it really matters, but you claimed it so I refute it. People will bend the law if it gets them somewhere faster. There's no benefit to going without seat belts, but when people see an immediate benefit to them (arriving at that ever-so-important destination) than the speed limit goes bye-bye.
That might even be what makes America so "successful" a democracy - we aim for success; for money. The American Dream, and all that. Though personally I'd attribute it more to our government's habit of exploiting poorer countries. not by war; that's just to have something to do. I mean lending money to countries not organized enough to use it yet, and later collecting on their debt while whatever projects they started with the money feebly start up.
And if you're going to compare us with Eastern Europe than consider the difference in our relations with our neighbors. We've never been the Union of Canadian Social Republics, have we?
Cool though that would be...
--
There is no spoon.
http://www.progressiveu.org/181343-who-are-you-yelling-at
there's this quote by madison that i really like --
"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect."
and i think your post pretty much summed up the gist of it. good thoughts.