the united states is not democratic country

BY KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV

K.J. / 2

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-states-does-meet-fundamental-requirements-state-

haytlyyev

I remember when Perestroika started in the Soviet Union, an

enormous flow of information suddenly crashed on us. It was

very confusing in the beginning because, in many ways,

people of the USSR used to the structured, or planned

information release. Pretty much as the current situation in the

United States, only shaped differently.

When suddenly the flash gates were opened, mass media

started to publish so many shocking stories, whether

unintentionally or otherwise, which eventually destroyed

completely all those ideas that we once thought are genuine.

When such major fundamental political destruction and social

shifts take place, people would always try to escape ideological

moral vacuum.

Therefore, because I was very young, I turned to American

culture. I did not want to hear anything about politics

anymore. Besides, the western option was very seductive. It

was very different and entertaining. Due to the severe

devastation caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, lack of

moral values and the realisation that we were intentionally

misled by our own leaders, the western way was a legitimate

option to choose. At least, I thought it was.

In my mind, the United States specifically was the benchmark

of everything good in life. Of course, as many others, I was

K.J. / 3


haytlyyev

convinced that it is also the benchmark for democracy. More

than a decade later, my views started to change. Here are main

reasons why it happened.

US citizens do not have the right to vote

The word “democracy” virtually means the power of people.

For any society to claim that they are democratic, at least one

very fundamental right shall be in place, the right to vote

directly. Besides, there must be unshakable evidence of

equality, which at least shall be translated into a solid legal and

social infrastructure to ensure that each citizen has equal

starting opportunity.

As far as I understand, in the United States, popular votes are

not considered as the main criteria. I am not going to describe

in details the process, but if we follow any presidential

campaign it will be clear that it is not about popular votes.

Citizens of the United States vote via intermediate and this

system is called "The Winner Takes It All" (or something like

this).

To vote via intermediate does not provide people with the

opportunity to influence directly on political process which will

eventually make an impact on every aspect of citizens’ life.

Whatever justification is in place to legitimise this voting

system, it does not change the substance. The people of the

United States do not directly participate in the most important

K.J. / 4


haytlyyev

process. Moreover, if we take a closer look at any presidential

campaign in the United States, it becomes clear that the

“winner” who “takes it all” is unlikely to represent the interest

of the majority of people.

Democracy requires social equality

Democratic countries provide a social net to those people who

ended up at the edge due to many reasons, objective or

otherwise. Such protection is a requirement because it serves

as an indicator which highlights the level of social maturity.

Needless to say, that by definition, the existing laws shall apply

to each and every citizen equally. There must be no mysterious

interpretation that justifies the difference of legal implications

for celebrities, influential politicians or simply rich individuals

and the rest of the public.

However, there is little evidence that it is the case in the United

States. For instance, when celebrities get arrested, somehow,

they are free to go shortly after their arrest. It is often explained

that their release is due to jail overcrowd. But why are they

always first to leave the facility? Isn't it supposed to be based

on a simple principle, "first come - first served".

It appears that the justice system is more justifiable for those

who have money and fame. At the same time, the majority,

who do not have extra money or fame do not have the same

set of privileges. I guess because in the modern world you need

K.J. / 5


haytlyyev

to pay for everything by cash, even if you want to exercise your

rights. Therefore, I would conclude that clear manifestation of

inequality it terms of legal protection and civil rights is another

factor that would not define the United States of America as

the democratic country.

Big business pays for election campaign

It is difficult to ignore one major flaw in all election campaigns.

There is no candidate who capable of finishing the race if he

or she do not have enough money to finance it. This is where I

am confused. How come this structure is called democratic

elections? Who pays for the candidates? I am quite sure that it

is unlikely that the representatives of the middle class or low-

income group of people to finance it. And if it is not them, then

who?

According to the public sources, in Washington DC alone, few

thousands of lobby firms are registered. Most of them

represent interests of a certain industry or industries or groups

of influential individuals or all of the above. They work for their

clients and shall establish close ties with the lawmakers to push

the adoption and speedy implementation of new legislation

that would satisfy business interests of a tiny but very

influential minority. Public sources also describe that a lion

share of any election campaign's funds provided by either

industries or simply rich and influential individuals. But as they

say, whoever pays, orders the music.

K.J. / 6


haytlyyev

How come such arrangement is considered as something

appropriate? I am not talking about provisions of the relevant

laws of the United States. I am sure that the army of lawyers

made their very best to make it look perfectly legal. Instead, I

really want to understand it from common sense point of view.

Where is the power of people? I honestly do not think the

majority has any power for them to ensure that their rights are

duly observed.

Unless we are talking about the power of people from the Wall

Street. If this is the case, then I must admit that it is a

remarkable transformation of the original meaning of the

democracy to something totally unrecognisable. Perhaps I

slept that day when the official definition of democracy was

replaced because it is indeed appearing as the power of the

Wall Street.

People hope that the elected officials will change faulty parts

and redirect the system to its original purpose. The majority

still believe that their representatives in Washington DC will

definitely do it, it just will take some time. But why is it taking

longer that everyone has expected? Why no sign of positive

change for people who are not that influential? Why the gap

between rich and poor is getting wider with each year. It

seems that people are so confused that they do not even know

how to ask these questions and demand the answers.

K.J. / 7


haytlyyev

Unfortunately, the positive change is unlikely to happen

anytime soon, unless a necessary change is implemented.

Without a drastic change of the entire political system, it is not

possible that politicians of the United States would represent

interests of the public?

The USA many times demonstrated double standards

Well documented 2008 financial meltdown provides a clear

explanation of why it happened. Millions lost their jobs,

homes, some lost their lives. But CEOs of big banks and other

representatives of the top management were not only left to

enjoy their freedom despite all factual evidence of their wrong

doings but also received enormous benefits. Therefore, if the

United States of America is the democratic country, why top

management of big banks are still free and not jailed?

The amount of bonus that each of them has been paid to

themselves look like a phone number including international

dialling code. Informed actions of banks triggered the hardest

recession across the globe. And yet, it was not enough for the

banking industry to realise that it is not the right time for

bonus payments.

By all means and standards of Common Sense, each and every

CEO of those banks had to be prosecuted and imprisoned due

to the crimes they seem to have committed. Interesting, why it

was not possible?

K.J. / 8


haytlyyev

At the same time, a person can be shot by police for way lesser

crime. Although I must admit that sometimes in the United

States people can be short by police for not committing any

crime at all (I guess this is probably the only privilege of regular

people in the 21st century democracy, but if it is a privilege,

then why the 1% have never tried to monopolize it?).

So many were killed by the very representatives of the law

enforcement body which has been established to protect and

serve those very people whom they have killed without any

reasonable justification.

This is a very ugly reality of the country that is still considered

by many as a benchmark of democracy. However, in

accordance with my understanding of Common Sense, it

cannot be qualified as the democratic state due to lack of

fundamental components that form the democracy.

the united states is not democratic country

Government & Nonprofit