The Unsightly Essence of American-Style Democracy

There are several liberal dogmas that have set the teeth on edge, which, through the efforts of scientists, journalists and politicians turned into extremely stable ideological attitudes. One of them is the so-called principle of power turnover.

Sometime at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the "bloody Bolsheviks" proclaimed a principle unprecedented for feudal tyranny and bourgeois democracy: full electivity, change at any time of all without removing officials and reducing their salaries to the usual wages of a worker. True, they were not able to fully implement it. However, it seems that today there is no more urgent and more urgent demand of the masses of the people of almost all countries of the world for their power. Ordinary people have a huge demand for power to be strictly separated from money and it could be controlled by a simple change of officials. This is precisely what the modern ideology of the change of power is flirting with.



The principle of the turnover of power, despite the similarity of sound, has nothing to do with the above Bolshevik formula and boils down to limiting the right of the people to elect the same person several times. Following the example of the United States, many countries have introduced in their constitutions a clause on the inadmissibility of being elected to the highest office of the state for more than two terms.

Opponents of political liberalism rightly question this principle. First, it contradicts democracy itself, since in fact it does not trust the choice of the people, restricts its rights. Secondly, it contradicts the socio-historical experience of mankind, which proves that the growth of competence is proportional to the quantity and quality of practice. Third, it runs counter to the objective need to ensure the consistency of state policy and social development, which in practice are highly dependent on the top official. Fourthly, it limits the strategic planning of the country's development, artificially limiting it to one decade in office of a senior official. It is also unclear why this principle does not apply to parties, but only to individuals. As if a group of party leaders cannot succumb to the "debauchery of the authorities" in the same way that they would succumb to it individually.

The origins of the principle of turnover of power

If we turn to the history of the emergence of this principle, details are revealed that shed a somewhat unusual light on it.

So, the constitution and the office of the president were invented by the Americans after the victory in the revolutionary war for independence in 1787. Before that, it was generally believed that the republic should not have a sole head, this was a sign of just a monarchy and despotism.

The main factor in the survival of independent America at that time was the formation of centralized power, which, due to political peculiarities, was impossible without the establishment of a strong institution of the head of state. However, American parties, which were controlled by American businesses, entered into a tacit agreement that they would not nominate the same person for the presidency more than twice. The idea here was simple: if one financial-industrial group "buys" the president, others would have at least some opportunity to replace him. So that the monopoly of power alone does not last too long. That is, it was a kind of compromise between the "elites". True, political practice quickly destroyed this plan by the fact that American businessmen quickly realized that it was possible to “buy” all candidates at once.

In general, many people are powdered with scientific explanations of very mundane phenomena. Political theorists at the dawn of American democracy invented many different "tools", which later, in real life, quickly turned into empty declarations and far-fetched traditions. On the other hand, the artificial introduction of these dogmas into other countries undermined and undermines their independent development.

Political science as a whole rarely chooses the content of political life as its subject, content with speculative reasoning about certain forms of political phenomena. Remember the rapture with which our liberals in the early 1990s told that the most important thing is to adopt the “correct constitution”, “correct laws”, as in Europe and America, and life will immediately get better. What is this if not a severe trauma from studying Western political science?

The essence of American democracy

The essence of American democracy is that the source of power is only money, and all its forms with "tools" and "principles" are just a glittering tinsel. The American state was formed as a state of landowners, merchants, bankers and businessmen. The people were assigned the role of the faceless masses, whose "American dream" is to break out into the people. Therefore, the principle of the turnover of power has served and serves primarily those who actually establish and control this power.

Who does not believe what has been said, let him think about the influence of the public and the influence of the largest American corporations on the President of the United States? Of course, the president is ready to go to any clownery to please the public: eat fast food, kneel, etc. - but he signs laws and unleashes wars in the interests of big business, and not ordinary Americans.

Therefore, when the 1951nd amendment to the constitution was adopted in the United States in 22, according to which one person cannot serve as president for more than two terms, it only legalized the demand of big business, which was very dissatisfied with Roosevelt's policies. The latter, for all his shortcomings, became the first US leader who not only talked about ordinary Americans, but also somewhat limited economic the tyranny of the American "elite". The English writer H. Wells even noted that the same thing was happening in Roosevelt's Washington as in Stalin's Moscow: "the expansion of the administrative apparatus, the creation of a number of new state regulatory bodies, the organization of a comprehensive public service." Sacred things by the measure of American business in the 1930s-1940s.

After the adoption of the 22nd amendment, a frenzied propaganda of the principle of the change of power as the basis of democracy and civilization began.

Is there a changeable government in the United States?

There has never been any change of power in the United States, and there is no change now. The ruling parties in the US government have not changed for hundreds of years, and the powers of the president are very limited, he alone does not determine either foreign or domestic policy. Whichever party comes to power, the policy of the state does not change dramatically, despite all the pre-election chatter. Behind both political parties are the same power clans associated with the largest American corporations. Presidents, congressmen, governors have long looked like show business stars and do not look like competent managers. When people suddenly appear in their midst who conduct at least some independent line in favor of the people, they either suddenly die, or they are shot by mysterious lonely psychos.

So should we blindly copy the American political model in Russia? We have a completely different historical path and different economic conditions.

The Americans impose their political institutions and principles on weak countries primarily because they do not really work and thereby weaken potential competitors.