It is a general view that the United States is a democratic country. Moreover, it is considered as the benchmark for democracy. However, if we take a closer look, it would become apparent that the USA does not meet fundamental requirements for it to be qualified as democratic. It would also suggest that the United States begins to shift towards dictatorship.

2. K.J. / 1
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
When Perestroika started in the Soviet Union, an enormous
flow of information suddenly crashed on us. It was very
confusing in the beginning because, in many ways, people of
the USSR used to the structured, or planned information
release. Pretty much as the current situation in the United
States, only shaped differently.
When suddenly the flash gates were opened, mass media
started to publish so many shocking stories, whether
unintentionally or otherwise, which eventually destroyed
completely all those ideas that we once thought are genuine.
When such major fundamental political destruction and social
shifts take place, people would always try to escape ideological
moral vacuum.
Therefore, because I was very young, I turned to American
culture. I did not want to hear anything about politics
anymore. Besides, the western option was very seductive. It
was very different and entertaining. Due to the severe
devastation caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, lack of
moral values and the realisation that we were intentionally
misled by our own leaders, the western way was a legitimate
option to choose. At least, I thought it was.
In my mind, the United States specifically was the benchmark
of everything good in life. Of course, as many others, I was
convinced that it is also the benchmark for democracy. More

3. K.J. / 2
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
than a decade later, my views started to change. Here are main
reasons why it happened.
US citizens do not have the right to vote
The word “democracy” virtually means the power of people.
For any society to claim that they are democratic, at least one
very fundamental right shall be in place, the right to vote
directly. Besides, there must be unshakable evidence of
equality, which at least shall be translated into a solid legal and
social infrastructure to ensure that each citizen has equal
starting opportunity.
As far as I understand, in the United States, popular votes are
not considered as the main criteria. I am not going to describe
in details the process, but if we follow any presidential
campaign it will be clear that it is not about popular votes.
Citizens of the United States vote via intermediate and this
system is called "The Winner Takes It All" (or something like
this).
To vote via intermediate does not provide people with the
opportunity to influence directly on political process which will
eventually make an impact on every aspect of citizens’ life.
Whatever justification is in place to legitimise this voting
system, it does not change the substance. The people of the
United States do not directly participate in the most important
process. Moreover, if we take a closer look at any presidential

4. K.J. / 3
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
campaign in the United States, it becomes clear that the
“winner” who “takes it all” is unlikely to represent the interest
of most people.
Democracy requires social equality
Democratic countries provide a social net to those people who
ended up at the edge due to many reasons, objective or
otherwise. Such protection is a requirement because it serves
as an indicator which highlights the level of social maturity. It
is given that the existing laws shall apply to every citizen
equally. There must be no mysterious interpretation that
justifies the difference of legal implications for celebrities,
influential politicians or simply rich individuals and the rest of
the public.
However, there is little evidence that it is the case in the United
States. For instance, when celebrities get arrested, somehow,
they are free to go shortly after their arrest. It is often explained
that their release is due to jail overcrowd. But why are they
always first to leave the facility? Isn't it supposed to be based
on a simple principle, "first come - first served".
It appears that the justice system is more justifiable for those
who have money and fame. At the same time, the majority,
who do not have extra money or fame do not have the same
set of privileges. I guess because in the modern world you need
to pay for everything by cash, even if you want to exercise your

5. K.J. / 4
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
rights. Therefore, I would conclude that clear manifestation of
inequality it terms of legal protection and civil rights is another
factor that would not define the United States of America as
the democratic country.
Big business pays for election campaign
It is difficult to ignore one major flaw in all election campaigns.
There is no candidate who capable of finishing the race if he
or she do not have enough money to finance it. This is where I
am confused. How come this structure is called democratic
elections? Who pays for the candidates? I am quite sure that it
is unlikely that the representatives of the middle class or low-
income group of people to finance it. And if it is not them, then
who?
According to the public sources, in Washington DC alone, few
thousands of lobby firms are registered. Most of them
represent interests of a certain industry or industries or groups
of influential individuals or all the above. They work for their
clients and shall establish close ties with the lawmakers to push
the adoption and speedy implementation of new legislation
that would satisfy business interests of a tiny but very
influential minority. Public sources also describe that a lion
share of any election campaign's funds provided by either
industries or simply rich and influential individuals. But as they
say, whoever pays, orders the music.

6. K.J. / 5
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
How come such arrangement is considered as something
appropriate? I am not talking about provisions of the relevant
laws of the United States. I am sure that the army of lawyers
made their very best to make it look perfectly legal. Instead, I
really want to understand it from common sense point of view.
Where is the power of people? I honestly do not think the
majority has any power for them to ensure that their rights are
duly observed.
Unless we are talking about the power of people from the Wall
Street. If this is the case, then I must admit that it is a
remarkable transformation of the original meaning of the
democracy to something totally unrecognisable. Perhaps I
slept that day when the official definition of democracy was
replaced because it is indeed appearing as the power of the
Wall Street.
People hope that the elected officials will change faulty parts
and redirect the system to its original purpose. The majority
still believe that their representatives in Washington DC will do
it, it just will take some time. But why is it taking longer that
everyone has expected? Why no sign of positive change for
people who are not that influential? Why the gap between
rich and poor is getting wider with each year. It seems that
people are so confused that they do not even know how to ask
these questions and demand the answers.

7. K.J. / 6
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
Unfortunately, the positive change is unlikely to happen
anytime soon, unless a necessary change is implemented.
Without a drastic change of the entire political system, it is not
possible that politicians of the United States would represent
interests of the public?
The USA many times demonstrated double standards
Well documented 2008 financial meltdown provides a clear
explanation of why it happened. Millions lost their jobs,
homes, some lost their lives. But CEOs of big banks and other
representatives of the top management were not only left to
enjoy their freedom despite all factual evidence of their wrong
doings but also received enormous benefits. Therefore, if the
United States of America is the democratic country, why top
management of big banks are still free and not jailed?
The amount of bonus that each of them has been paid to
themselves look like a phone number including international
dialling code. Informed actions of banks triggered the hardest
recession across the globe. And yet, it was not enough for the
banking industry to realise that it is not the right time for
bonus payments.
And standards of Common Sense, every CEO of those banks
had to be prosecuted and imprisoned due to the crimes they
seem to have committed. Interesting, why it was not possible?

8. K.J. / 7
KAKAJAN HAYTLYYEV
At the same time, a person can be shot by police for way lesser
crime. Although I must admit that sometimes in the United
States people can be short by police for not committing any
crime at all (I guess this is probably the only privilege of regular
people in the 21st century democracy, but if it is a privilege,
then why the 1% have never tried to monopolize it?).
So many were killed by the very representatives of the law
enforcement body which has been established to protect and
serve those very people whom they have killed without any
reasonable justification.
This is a very ugly reality of the country that is still considered
by many as a benchmark of democracy. However, in
accordance with my understanding of Common Sense, it
cannot be qualified as the democratic state due to lack of
fundamental components that form the democracy.