From an article exploring the modern hopelessness of things being outside of the individuals control and requiring a group action, ie political, to reign it back;

"All those periods [of low American national esteem] were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House. This period has seen intense interest in the presidential primaries ... Records were shattered by voters showing up at polling places, yearning for a voice in who will next guide the country as it confronts the uncontrollable.

One of the reasons I wanted to gain American Citizenship before the Presidential election is because I think this is a very important election; both locally, nationally and globally. The world is kind of waiting with baited breath and hope that America won't elect another moron who can't govern.

Democracies tend to give governments one chance too many, it is the same in Australia with the several moribund governments, including Howard's and Carr/Iemma too many chances after it become obvious they lost the will to govern in the public interest. America is no different. The blood letting in the recent legislative elections shows the remorse for that bad decision to leave Bush in the executive. (more)
Politicians have a choice to act morally and with individual conscience; however, it is rare. Caught as they are in-between the gnashing teeth of party discipline, media discipline, populism, and maybe pathological desires for power. Fareed Zakaria blamed too much democracy for that in his book Future of Freedom. Politicians could not act morally or as executive/legislative specialists as they were hemmed in by the demand to be re-elected. Ezra Klein points a finger at the mass media. (more)
Fareed Zakaria in the Future of Freedom argues that democracy as a form of political organisation is a luxury of a wealthy post-capitalistic society.

He identifies two trends. One, that the rule of law and the principles of limited government such as universal rights, limited executive powers and constitutionalism are developed through the process of capitalism and market economies.

Second, that it is often per capita wealth which determines if a society will be able to maintain democracy as a form of political organisation. Countries with per capita income of over $6,000 survive as democracies. This suggests that democracy requires a great deal of population buy in, as well as being energy and cost intensive to maintain. (more)
Mead argues that the democratic nature of American foreign policy has been superior to the isolated genius' behind continentalist policy (ie Bismarck or Kissinger). Mead writes:

The [democratic policy making] system is stable because it is homeostatic; although interest groups perceive themselves in a constant struggle, the net effect of all those struggles is to keep society constantly seeking the point at which dissatisfaction is minimised.

A very succinct description of the liberal republican process. (reply)
Ilnur Cevik has an interesting comment in the New Anatolian:

The starting point is the fact that everyone says the current constitution was drafted under a military junta and despite the fact that 30 percent of it has been amended since 1982 it is still the product of an authoritarian rule. So everyone also agrees that Turkey should have a new and modern constitution that befits a civilized country...

Cevik is arguing that a democratic constitution cannot have legitimacy unless it is created and affirmed in a democratic manner. (more)
Via lm: Lessons in Forced Democracy. Vedantam argues that the Philippines is a better analogy for Iraq and consequently offers more insight. The numbers inthe article for the probability of success for forced democracy are low with only 41 cases of democracy being implemented by force successfully over the last two hundred years. The recidivism rates are high too; a third of democracies imposed by force fail within ten years. Of the weak democracies which survive the first ten years, seventy-five percent fail within twenty to thirty years. While ninety percent fail within sixty years. (more)

Two articles on Thailand; one an editorial from the WaPo which argues that the coup in Thailand, and the military's subsequent political management, was a blunder. The other a perspective in the Bangkok Post by Tunya Sukpanich which documents the disagreements with the junta's drafting of a new constitution which is less democratic than the prior one. (more)

Greg Barns' op-ed views government and political boundaries in service delivery terms. He argues for a return to the New Federalism push of the early 90s but where government is organised along maximum service delivery efficiency - which is a social economist's view of the nation-state. But this raises issues of republicanism, democracy and politics which are not catered for. It is a state down approach to federalism rather than a citizen, or individual, up approach. (more)

Even the broadest definition of democracy cites some form of accountability of power to the citizenry as a whole. But how can there be accountability in the face of widespread apathy? How can a state be democratic if its citizens do not exercise democracy?

In responce I propose five steps for every citizen who wants their "democracy" to be democratic. (more)

The thesis for Chalmers Johnson's book, Nemesis , is that democracy and empire are incompatible. A nation must choose between one or other - as the two cannot co-exist. (more)
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.