Is the United States of America a real democracy?

Indirect Democracy
Indirect Democracy

When government become the stakeholder of a privately own company the voice of the citizens become the voice of the company.

Democracy is the process by which governmental power is politicized by citizens under a free electoral system. But can the electoral system be so free that it causes the citizen’s choice to lead them into a plain field of nowhere. Since in some countries presidents are elected by the people, in Haiti's case this country function under a true democratic system.

However, a true democracy often pushes its leaders to plan for a lifelong presidency. And as a consequence, deals are made against public interest to assure these leaders of their power. Nevertheless, they may be several types of democracy; it will all depend on how democracy is legislated to prevent an uneven distribution of political power.

In the United States, we have what is known as separation of power, which is a system by which states have independent power and responsibilities. Regardless of that fact, some can still argued that there are no absolute separations of power under a democratic system.

In a way they would be right because truly, it’s all depends on the demographic of the house representatives. Nonetheless, true (direct) democracy does exist in some society, although it doesn’t always work as it should, no one can say for certain that it has not been attempted.

Unlike the United States, citizens who are being governed under a true democratic system do not elect their president of choice on the basis of Electoral College. These citizens elect their president directly, each single vote count. People under a true democracy supposedly have direct say but somehow their voices are not always heard.

In this society, the upper class very often clashes with the lower class. They choices on political leadership, governmental rules and regulation frequently differ. Since the upper class tends to own most of the businesses, they feel as though they opinion shouldn’t be compared with that of someone who has no idea of what democracy means.

With that in mind, let us go back in history for a minute. Way back in time, before they were government, existed only businesses, but they couldn’t continue to exist without protection. So they hired people to protect their business. The more money they generated the more protection they desired. As a result, government was formed therefore we can say governments were created to protect businesses. So why should it be any different now. It would seem that under a democratic system, those who create jobs for citizens in this country do have a big stakes in it and their voices should reflect that stake.

However, when government becomes the stakeholder of a privately or publicly traded company, the citizen’s voices becomes the voice of the company. They then dictate who should run the company. It is very similar to a joint venture the only different there is that it’s the citizen of the country who should dictates who should run the company.

Since it’s their tax money that is invested they voices becomes the dominant voice. Likewise, we can also argued, since we elected a commander in chief to represent us, he does what he thinks would benefit us and the country. In regard to this, we can then say under a democratic system, those we elect to represent us, makes decision on our behalf but it does not mean that we’re under any obligation to accept every choice that is made on our behalf.

Under a democratic system, they is no absolute separation of power, it all depends on which political party control the house. Hence, if the house is control by more democrat than republican, the president being a democrat will gain the advantage of having his bills pass. If republicans do not like the bill, they may choose to filibuster, but more often than that it will have no effect without some democrats on their side. Whereas these options are possible under an indirect democratic system, there are not available under a true democracy. True democracy do not represent the voice of big stakeholder, they represent only the voices of single individual citizens.

If a domestic company’s business model involves export to other country, than they success benefits their country of origin. This company is obviously bringing money into the economy of his country and by doing that; they have reduced the capital flight of that country. Well then, can we obviously say that this company should have equal say as a citizen who pays his taxes on a regular basis?

That’s the problem with direct democracy; citizens under a direct democratic society have equal say as those corporations that contribute to the country’s economic success. That often create conflict between corporations & members of the government which sometime resulted into a coup d’état.

However, no one is saying that corporation won’t take advantage of their power to abuse the citizens of the very country they're contributing to. This is why the voice of the citizens under an indirect democratic system is important. Revolting against a company’s business practice that does not correspond with governmental laws and regulations must be taken seriously.

The government in this case must step in to protect citizen’s interest as oppose to the corporation. That is a government of the people by the people and for the people in the interest of corporation. Not quite because some can argue that no government that is for the people can at the same time be in the interest of corporations - they may be right.

Under an indirect democracy like we have in the United State, citizens do have equal access to power, it’s all depends on the people of that society. If we want freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of press, we’ve got to fight for it. No government wants to give complete power to its citizen, that’s the reason why some corporations would rather that we remain unaware. In this case, it doesn’t matter if the political party is democrat or republican, the choice is ours, if we want our rights to be respected, we must be at the front line at all times.

As I said before, those with political status are like empty vessels, they purpose is to carry us over to their destinations of preference. If we were to separate the political status of the candidates, and just contemplate on ideas and belief, we might notice that it is not the status of the candidate that we honor, but only the values that they have shared with the people.

However, this president Barack Obama has done something different, his administration have used the Internet as a communication panel. In a way, you never truly know what the president is communicating to some members of the public if you’re not included in their database. And even if you were included, they can pick and choose which information goes to which states.

This is democracy at its best, having the public participate in decision making process is a good strategy and one that will take flight from now on. This system has made it very easy to target the new generation. Since the new generation is not one that reads news papers, than the best way to involve them, is via the Internet.

More by this Author


Comments 9 comments

jxb7076 profile image

jxb7076 7 years ago from United States of America

The word democracy has taken on a whole new meaning since I studied it in grade school. The teachers emphasized that we were a true democracy but as I grew older I realized that freedom of speech and the one man one vote concept was theoritical, having no relevance to reality in the real world. In today's societies it would appear that the more powerful the government become, the less power the people have.

Great information. Thanks for sharing.


COOLBREEZING 7 years ago

Thanx for your comment JX


CUFD 7 years ago

Nice blog, thanks for sharing.


fineyounglad profile image

fineyounglad 6 years ago from America

America is a constitutional republic not a democracy. One of the greatest political philosophers of all time, Aristotle, in his six types of government model, laid out the three legitimate type of government and their corrupt forms.

"Polity", which is the closest to our republic, was the best and most free type of government, While democracy, which is polity's corrupt form, was the absolute worst. So we should be happy we are not living in a democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville described democracy as "tyranny of the majority". So always remember, America is a republic.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 6 years ago from New York, New York Author

Thanks for the detail, but if possible please click on the link below for a more in debt explaination of the topic you've just addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D77gxfwnvpk


John 5 years ago

Real democracy is still an unattainable ideal, and so far there is no system in the world asserves as the basis , ruleor sense of comparison for evaluation of universal value of full and genuine democracy, andneither can exist , because, have to get into their essence and see who benefits. For the ancient Greek aristocracy existed broader "democracy", but for the slaves, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the destitute, the disenfranchised and excluded (which were the absolute majority), democracy was only an empty word.

The processes of democracy are diverse, reflecting the political, social and cultural development of each nation. The processes of democracy based on fundamental principles and practices not in uniform because there is no real model, perfect shape, or full copy of Democracy in the world, and there is no single model that fits all regions and all countries.

All nations must be free, sovereign and independent of any imperialist power, for so the process of building democracy and freedom in accordance with its ideals of development, or social, cultural, political and economic.

The organization of American political power, all powers are united in the hands of the ruling class, which does not allow any threat to its rule, and that can not be contradicted, criticized organized opposition unfavorable or have its own prerogatives, ideals or principles; therefore the capital and the interests of a privileged minority in the first place, and must be defended at any cost.


Folorunsho michael. 4 years ago

No system o goverment are however democrtises and constitutional can guarantee absolute separation of power. Discuss.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 4 years ago from New York, New York Author

TO FANEY,

The standing argument is that the United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic, and not Democracy “a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights.”

We have two propositions for that statement and there are both justifiable by condition. We can argue that if a republic government is best suited for the people’s right and liberty why is it then that under a republican president the people’s right and liberty had been violated?

If we can agree that a republican government doesn’t necessarily guarantee “the people’s right” than we can say that the first proposition is subject matter and that it depends on the president elect and the conditions facing the country and citizens at current time.

Therefore, since they can be times when the constitution has been violated under a republic government, than the notion that “a Republic Government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights” can only be justifiable by condition.

Some of us have experienced the 911 terror which had caused the enactment of the “U.S. Patriot Act”. George W. Bush proposed the act as an effort to combat Terrorism in America, but unfortunately did not work as well as it was intended. It was suppose to have strengthened America by tighten up on external and internal security. The fact that the act included domestic terrorism was not the problem.

It became a problem when innocent people being convicted of terrorism act which their new nothing about. As we can see this happen under a Republican government not a Democrate, which to me means that our freedom can only be secured by our own effort not government.

It is from these incidences that we have concluded that just by having a republic government in office is not a guarantee that citizen’s rights will be protected at all times not does it make any difference under a Democratic government.

Just because the country was founded under a republic government which state that “the Republic Government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights” actually means that under a republic government the citizen’s rights are better protected. And the same is also true for a democratic government. The government does not protect our rights, it is the constitution of The United States that protects our rights so long as we continue fighting to uphold the constitution. One


Jose M Lopez Sierra 23 months ago

No, and here's an excellent reason why.

Not true that there are 3 political status options for Puerto Rico

The United States (US) government has made Puerto Ricans believe that there are 3 political status options for Puerto Rico. That is a lie. The purpose for that is to have Puerto Ricans fight amongst themselves. The plan has been a huge success! Puerto Rico has been a colony of the United States for 116 years, and judging by the 80% voter turnout in the colonial elections, the majority of us has not realized that we have been lied to.

In reality, there is only one option. The United Nations (UN) in 1960 determined that colonialism is a crime against humanity. Therefore, the only thing that Puerto Rico can do is to become her own nation. That means that the US must give Puerto Rico the sovereignty that the US illegally took away from her by virtue of the July 25, 1898 military invasion.

Thus far, the US government has ignored the 33 UN resolutions asking it to immediately decolonize Puerto Rico. Instead, it has tried to hide these petitions, and at the same time appear to believe in democracy by pushing for plebiscites so that Puerto Ricans could decide between colonialism, being a US state, or independence (decolonization as required by the UN).

The problem with the US pushed plebiscites are that they:

1. don’t comply with international law that prohibits a nation to have a colony.

2. don’t comply with international law that requires the empire to give the sovereignty it illegally took away to its colony.

3. don’t comply with international law that requires that to have free elections, that country must be free first.

4. have 2 options that are not permitted by international law- continuing being a colony and becoming a state of the country that has the colony. For the option of becoming a state of the country that has the colony to be considered, the colony must first become her own nation (decolonized).

This is why we have to peacefully protest 3 times a year until the US government complies with the UN resolutions for Puerto Rico decolonization.

José M López Sierra

www.TodosUnidosDescolonizarPR.blogspot.com

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working