Unfortunately, since the US has become the single global power, their
form of miserable democracy has become the standard that is normally
implemented wherever we now see democratization.
The hallmark of US democracy is the direct election of the chief of
government, who then concentrates a huge amount of power in his hands for
the next 4 years.
However, in this form of democracy, elections typically degenerate into
a popularity contest between the leading candidates. No wonder that
show biz personalities sometimes have an edge.
Furthermore, the system favors populists (who play emotional tones)
over responsibility-driven characters (who concern themselves with the
real issues).
I call the US system of direct democracy miserable because it generally
produces worse results than an indirect system would.
An indirect system of democracy would mean: people elect their
representatives, and these representatives elect the chief of government and
other officials who wield power.
Unfortunately, whether in the US or anywhere else, the electorates, on
average, are not very knowledgeable of the issues at stake, and
actually, electorates in general are not intelligent. Typically, you have a
large number of stupid people electing candidates who can best relate to
stupid people.
This is the case more so in the Third World than in the Old World and
the New World, as in the Third World, electorates are typically composed
of a large number of uneducated, and sometimes illiterate people.
Often, in direct elections for major government positions, they vote along
the lines they best understand. And these are ethnic and religious
lines. Or they vote for candidates who can best address their envy or hate
(as it is much easier to unite a large number of people against a
perceived common enemy, rather than behind a constructive agenda).
When this happens, you typically see ethnic and religious fragmentation
in Third World countries, as well as a lot of policies that are not in
the genuine interest of the people.
The alternative route of an indirect, representative system can avoid
many of the pitfalls of the direct system. If you have villages or
neighborhoods elect representatives among their midst, these are likely
people of a good education with a track record of consensus building. If
these representatives of neighborhoods and villages then elect a
representative among themselves, you again get a group of representatives who
have an even better track record of consensus building. And they should
be the ones who elect a country's president (and who should be able to
impeach him).
