Democracy is possible exactly to the extent that it does not threaten the interests of the state. The government will never voluntarily give you a legal choice if it is possible that your choice could damage the existing state system or country. Thus, democracy is possible only in stable wealthy states that have nothing to lose. Yes, you can talk about democracy in Switzerland or Finland. Because in these countries you need to go crazy, that would try to change the current system from the inside. And no one outside will do this, since these countries have no geopolitical interests, no geopolitical and economic value. There are no large natural resources, these countries are of no interest as a springboard for economic or military expansion of anyone anywhere. Yes, and it makes no sense to change the power there, so she is quite obedient. But another thing a country like the United States. The US government must survive the mind in order to allow the people to control the state system, and give at least a scant chance of something in this system to significantly change.
State democracy is like a huge, well-functioning mechanism in which all the wheels spin as the state needs. The design is arranged so that the wheels can spin in any direction. But the main know-how of this mechanism is: where the individual wheels would not turn, the mechanism will work as before.
Do you think honest presidential elections are held in the USA? Yes, they are honest. Even despite the opinion that George W. Bush, in 2000, falsified the results of the elections in Florida with the help of his brother (see
Fahrenheit 9/11 ), let's assume that the elections were fair, because we have no evidence to the contrary (and why did Kennedy be killed?). But the main feature of this election is that they should not be falsified.
How are candidates selected in Russia? The most serious limitation is that according to the Constitution, a candidate must be over 35 years old. The constitution guarantees that any citizen over 35 can become president. Of course, this is not so easy, the elections in Russia are a separate story, but how does this happen in the United States? About the same. The difference is that only two candidates from two parties have a chance to win the elections. They decide who to slip their voters. The fact that candidates from two parties have chances to win, on the one hand, ensures that the person does not become a person of another ideology, on the other hand, gives everyone the illusion of choice. The candidate will not be a person who has a worldview that is very different from the generally accepted one. And this system, debugged over the centuries, works like a clock.
')
Tell me, what is the difference between Obama and McCain? Besides that one black and the other man? Besides that one veteran of Vietnam and the other young? Besides that one Republican and another Democrat? Can you name at least one sharp difference in their programs?
Elections in the United States is a well-directed show. It is colorful, it is fascinating, it is fascinating, it gives intrigue. This is about racing or boxing. Absolutely no matter which horse comes first? It is important that came to the one on which you put. This is excitement, not sober calculation.
But even such a choice, meaningless, the state does not trust its citizens directly. The winner is determined by electoral votes from each state. Otherwise, God forbid, a disagreeable person will filter through the difficult sieve of choosing a candidate. And people, they do not understand anything in politics. They can not be trusted.
Do you still think that there is an opportunity to freely choose in the USA? Yes, if you call the “choice” the situation when you are offered to choose from a menu in the restaurant, which has only 2 dishes, and both dishes with pom pushes.