The US (a republic) and UK are not a "democracies". Why are we not putting our own house in order first?

Question

"Democracy" in the US is just an illusion. Please read the definition of "republic" and article below before replying.

Even in the UK, most people don't trust the system (less than half the people vote and of those that vote, only a third are needed to form a government). A King or queen cannot be the ultimate authority in a democracy (as in the UK).

Shouldn't we put our house in order first before invading countries to impose "democracy"?

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/republic

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1866780,00.html

Maid Marion: Perhaps you wern't paying attention at school when they were teaching English (as spoken in England).

The first sentence is a statement, the second is a question (perhaps a rhetorical one but definately a question).

penphonestaple: During the opening of opening of parliment, you will hear references to "Her Majestys' Government". Although she would be foolish to exercise her power, the queen is the ultimate authority in the UK (otherwise she would be paying taxes like the rest of us insteading of getting an "allowance").

Answer 1

Insofar as there is voting for representatives, both are democracies.
Insofar as the representatives, especially the top ones, do not represent the will of the people, but of their own little clique, they are failed democracies.
A thought comes to mind ( and so far there is no law saying that thoughts can't come into our minds). Here is the thought:-If US and UK are failed democracies, does this give US and UK "failed nation status"? and if so do we invade each other or what?

Answer 2

There is no doubt that the electoral system in the US is considerably lacking, as the article highlights, and I completely agree with you that if those conditions existed in a country where the US was responsible for monitoring the elections, the officials would undoubtedly report that the arrangements were unsatisfactory. I think it would certainly be a good idea for the US to introduce a more uniform system of voting and address those issues, but of course there is the problem of conflict of state/federal powers.

The point you raise about the UK is entirely different - it's not about whether people have the opportunity to vote freely and fairly but whether they choose to. It could be argued that the fact that some who are entitled to a vote choose not to is actually a feature of democracy - you have the right to vote or to refrain from doing so. Mandatory voting would strike many people as a totalitarian measure rather than a democratic one. The percentage of votes required to win an election is purely a feature of how the voting is organised and how many candidates there are. However Britain's "first past the post" system is perfectly democratic - it just tends to mean that a slight advantage for one party is amplified when it comes to distribution of seats in the legislature. In Scotland the system is different, and almost guarantees that no one party can form a government. You could argue that this is more democratic (and I personally am happy with this system), but on the other hand it means that in practice the government agenda is a compromise, and is not a manifesto which ANYONE voted for.

Answer 3

Regarding your rather dismissive comment to penphonestable...assuming you know so much about Parliament you will also know that the way a Bill becomes a law in the UK is when the Queens representative says in Norman French..."The Queen wills it".

Now. Does that meanjust because the words are spoken in Norman French that the business of Parliament is in that tongue? No of course it doesn't.

In a similar vein. Just because the Government is referred to as HMG doesnt really mean anything anymore. Various Parliament & financial Acts since the 19th century have all but removed any authority the Crown had. The Queen can still declare war etc, BUT SHE CAN ONLY DO IT ON THE ADVICE OF PARLIAMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

The Queen in reality has no power at all.
since 1610 (the case of proclomations) in which the crowns power to make laws was curtailed "The King hath no power other than the law allows" (sir Edward Coke) and the 1760 formation of Parliament at the end of the revolution that saw a deal struck with William of orange and Mary in return for being instated as king and queen passed powers to make laws to Parliament.
The only powers the crown has are in the form of Royal perogative powers that by constitutional convention are exercised by Her Majesties Ministers and Government.

The Queen's only role is as head of state but is unable to make any executive actions without the advice of her ministers who by convention are also democratically elected members of Parliament and in turn by operation of constitutional convent are answerable to the remainder of the House of commons formed by elected members who are intern answerable to the public.
This seems entirely democratic to me, the fact that people can't be bothered to vote only removes their right to moan after the fact.

Answer 5

i might rather prefer to comprehend how the Republican party and Mr. Romney justify consistently calling the Democrats a party of huge spenders while thats all the Republicans have executed because they have been in place of work. fantastically annoying is the actuality that there became a funds SURPLUS while Mr Bush took place of work - a present from Mr. Clinton. merely wonderin' how lots of a deficit is there now? 5 or 6 trillion? to this point as being a punch line for Mr. Leno - all politicians are honest interest.

Answer 6

who said the USA was a democracy? and what would you call a freely elected government in country where freedom of speech and vote is the norm in the uk and maybe you could try improving your grammer before posting any questions although yours sounds more like a statement

Answer 7

Foreign interests. It's too interesting to Bush and his cronies to jump into oil rich countries and call it fighting to freedom or against terrorism. We can't put our own "house" in order until the majority agrees that those in government are too concerned with their own pockets to be concerned about American citizens. Everything Bush does seems motivated by money, recruiting voters for the Republican Party, or personally gratifying. I have yet to see him do something that benefits me, my family, my community, etc. Yet I have no solutions. I sign petitions, I vote, I'm active in my community, but to no avail. Bush has money, so does Cheney, so does Rumsfeld.....etc. What do I have? I'm just a lowly high school teacher.

Answer 8

The UK and USA have democratically elected governments, ok so both were not elected on the majority of the popular vote but both have systems that allow the electorate to change the government at the elections held.

Answer 9

Totally agree, bit of a cheek exporting our flawed and biased democracies across the world.

Wouldn't be so bad but the people we are exporting them to know our democracies are useless and would prefer almost any other form of government than ours. Ask them.

Oh we didn't ask if they wanted our democracies - how very democratic of us.

Answer 10

The monarchy is not the ultimate authority in the UK. The Prime Minister is. The monarchs are little more then figureheads, constitutionally bound not to interfere in politics.