Ringens Definition Of American Democracy

As Ringen writes it, the American democracy is the ‘oldest (…) one, the biggest one, the most powerful one, perhaps the most self-conscious one to see itself as a model for others, and probably also both the most respected and despised one’ (2008: 284). This could be another definition for Americanism. The United States think his role is important in international relations, such as spreading democracy on their model. The Bush government established democratization as one of the strategic priorities after the 9/11. The means used however were highly criticised. The promotion of democracy was associated with military intervention, the use of torture and a tendency to secure their own position with the different government to protect their interests.

This quote is widely used to describe American democracy and American Exceptionalism. It embodies the characteristics thought as essential for a democratic government. The possible interpretation for this definition is that the US government is accountable to the people and represent them well. On their side, the people do take part actively in the political process so they have an influence on policies making. And the government is responsive to the people’s interests and needs. Democracy in that case is the interaction from both sides resulting in the ‘rule of the people’ and not “of the government”. There is a need for both sides to fulfil their role in order for the democratic process to

Their democracy was never completely a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ in the first place. But as Muravic says ‘It took American democracy 86 years to abolish slavery, 144 years to enfranchise women and 189 to assure black people the vote. After a century and a half, American democracy produced the Great Depression. Democracy is not a rose garden. It is as fallible as human beings’ (cited by Newton and Van Deth, 2010: 393) we do realize that it is normal. Democracy is a state ‘rule by the people’ as the Greek said. But as the people are fallible themselves, it seems logical that the system can be fallible as well. Gilens suggests that, as the system where rich people had a greater influence on politics always existed, it should not be considered as a threat to democracy. However, if mobility across incomes and the social ladder will no longer be realisable, a permanent class of politically disenfranchised people would be created. And that could means the end of the American