"It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected.

For many people, democracy is only democratic when the people they support and the policies they support get elected. If the wrong people get elected; if the wrong policies get supported, then they assume it can't be a democracy. For those who purport to be anti-authoritarian, if only everyone agreed with me then we'd have a 'proper' democracy.
The self-styled anti-authoritarian becomes the very persona of an authoritarian. and they'll never recognise it.

Despite the wrong person winning, the US is indeed a democracy. As is Australia and Britain and (for now) France and Germany. And South Korea and Japan. These are places where the rulers are subject to the people and are subject to the law. Where governmnets change based on the will of the people and without resort to arms.

Are they perfect democracies? No. No such thing has ever existed or will ever exist. A gold bar is a gold bar even when its not 100% gold.

Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see the beauty. Others see the cracks in the paint.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« "It [the USA] was declassified to a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Democracy Index in 2016."

Gee I wonder what happened in 2016. Oh, that's right... the wrong person (at least as far as the leftist Economist is concerned) got elected. »
.

America’s downgrade to flawed-democracy status coincided with the election of Donald Trump, but the trend was in motion years before he assumed office, mhaze. He was not the initial cause of it. He has simply accelerated the movement.

A Pew Research survey on U.S. democracy found that more than 80% of respondents believed that most political figures “don’t care” about “what people like me think”.

The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions.

It was America’s political culture and the functioning of its government that posed problems. America scored poorly on political polarisation and general support for democracy. Pew Research found that more than a quarter of Americans thought that an autocracy — in which a leader could bypass Congress and the courts — would be a somewhat or very good form of government.

Trump seems to fit the bill for that.

As for The Economist, mhaze, it is not “leftist”. If anything, it is liberal — though it prides itself on being neither left nor right but independent. It is owned by the Economist Group, a British multinational media company. The principal shareholders are the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Layton, and Agnelli families. Subscriptions, advertising, and sponsored content generate its revenue.

The current editor is Zanny Minton Beddoes who describes herself as “an English liberal to my core”, and adds, speaking of the Group :

« Our roots are liberal in the classical sense. We were founded in 1843 and have championed free markets, open societies and individual liberties ever since. We believe these are the foundations on which human progress thrives ».

.

Hi Banjo,

You said; "I am inclined to agree that the term (full democracy) is not appropriate, stricto sensu, in respect of constitutional monarchies such as Australia." I agree, I see Australia as a pseudo democracy or a hybrid democracy, which in itself is not a bad thing. In a modern society the concept of a "full democracy" in its purest sense cannot work for practical reasons, the number of people involved, and time needed to determine the outcome of an issue, these thing alone are impractical.

Even in the most basic of societies "rule by the people" (democracy) is not practical. Always some person with a stronger personality, or a stronger will, and sometime generally more knowledgeable than the majority, and more assertive, that person might be called the Chief. That person by nature becomes the final decision maker, he may take council from others, generally an elite group of advisers, but in the end its he who makes the final decisions.

Communism is democratic, so the Communists will tell you. As they believe Communism is the one and only system of government that is desirable, and all others are superfluous, irrelevant and unnecessary. And they will tell you democracy functions perfectly well under Communism, with alternate views and opinions contained with the one party system. There was no one more democratic that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini etc, so they would say. Its just their concept of democracy was a little bit different from yours and mine.

1. The Economist.... any number of bodies that track such things rate The Economist as 'Left Leaning' eg Ad Fontes Media , AllSides.com

That someone of the left thinks it is centrist is hardly surprising.

2. "The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. "

How does that make a country 'not democratic'. I'd venture that there's not a country on earth where the people think their leaders are acting in their interests.

All you are doing is saying that you don't want to beleive the US is democratic and then digging up ludicrous unrelated data that purports to justify your fondest held beliefs.

But here's a thought to keep you awake at night.... since the re-election of Trump the polls show that the number of USians thinking the country is on the right track has increased. What a disaster, eh? The devil incarnate is, using your criteria, making the US MORE democratic!!

The problem here is that you haven't and probably can't give a definition of democracy but instead juts say that whatever the US (really Trump) does is anti-democratic and then pretend those criteria don't apply elsewhere

mhaze,

For the second time in this thread, you’re responding to a version of the argument that no one actually made.

Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” He pointed to multiple indicators used by respected institutions like Pew and The Economist - declining institutional confidence, increased political polarisation, and a rising openness to autocracy among voters - all of which were happening before Trump took office and have only accelerated since.

Rather than engage with those trends, you reframed his comment as just another anti-Trump gripe. That’s become a bit of a reflex, it seems - flatten every critique of democratic backsliding into “you just don’t like who won.”

As for The Economist, it’s telling that you ignored its stated methodology and track record in favour of simply labelling it “left-leaning.” That’s quite a pivot from your own position a while back:

“Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data.”
(forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839)

That’s a good principle - worth sticking to.

And while we’re on definitions, it’s ironic to see you demand one for democracy while brushing aside the frameworks already offered - including the Economist’s own model and the five principles cited earlier from the Australian Parliament.

If your only metric for whether a country is a democracy is “people can still vote,” you’re missing the entire point of the conversation - and unintentionally confirming it.

And as for your claim that growing public satisfaction in Trump’s second term proves things are improving - that’s a textbook appeal to popularity. Public opinion isn’t the same thing as democratic integrity. If it were, countries like Russia or Hungary would rank as model democracies.

Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained, how rights are protected, and how institutions function - especially when leaders are popular. Conflating approval with legitimacy is how democracies rot while smiling crowds cheer.

Still here John? I thought you'd skedaddled after the Marcott debacle.

"Banjo didn’t claim that a drop in public trust alone makes a country “not democratic.” "

Kindly show where I said he did. Or not. Oh, and please don't go down the 'implied it' road again.

Banjo asserted that people believing the leaders weren't working in their interests was a sign of the nation being less democratic..."The perception among a majority of voters was that the government was led by people who were not acting in their best interests. Just 40% of moderates said that there was a party in America that represented their opinions."

I merely pointed out that that wasn't a valid way to evaluate whether a nation was undemocratic. I also pointed out that if that was Banjo's criteria, then the US was becoming more democratic under Trump. Sorry if the logic of that by-passed you.

"Democratic health is measured by how power is constrained"

The issue isn't how healthy a democracy is, but whether it is a democracy at all. I'll readily agree that democracy in most parts of the world is under pressure from the authoritarian left, but that doesn't mean those places aren't democracies still. There will come a tipping point where they will cease to be democracies (eg if Germany bans the AfD or the UK bans Reform or the US judiciary overthrows the Executive) but none have reached that point yet.