A radical form of government. When the US democracy was formed it was the “state of the art” of democratic political development. It was radically different from any previous form of government, including the democracy that had existed in classical Greece, (507-336 BCE). Now, after 241 years, most U.S. citizens feel that the democracy that was so revolutionary and radical at the time is now so remote and distant from them as to be almost irrelevant to their lives except that its presence is too large to ignore. The question that needs answering is this, “How must democracies be designed so that they are able to evolve in synch with the democratic host society?” Doing so would go a long way to prevent civil disobedience, resistance movements, social instability, and riots.
Upon first examination, the Declaration of Independence appears to have fully and completely defined the democracy of the United States. It appears so clear as to leave little room for equivocation, and that was exactly the intent of its authors as a declaration to the monarchy of England. It is so clear and concise that when we examine it for any ambiguities, there appear to be none. But that is an appearance. The culprit that has stopped the US democracy from continuing its evolution is a simple assumption.
The fulfillment of this definition of the US democratic process, from the time of its Declaration to the time that it was finally and fully achieved by 2003, is an era of “first definition.” This first definition of the US democratic process has so permeated the whole of American society as to have gone beyond social definition to become a cultural paradigm.
The development of the United States form of democracy from 1776 to the present time is an example of an established, sovereign democratic nation with an immature democratic process. At this time (mid-2017) it has fulfilled one of its major initial intentions by providing all citizens over the age of eighteen with represented participation in their democracy.
During its existence the United States transformed the monarchial colonies through revolution and collective collaboration into the longest-lived democracy in the history of the world. Tragically, almost all citizens assume and accept that it will continue indefinitely in the same form as it has since 1789. Those assumptions are tragic because when we assume what is to continue, that is the point where the future becomes dangerous. I believe there are limits that a decreasingly effective democracy can exist before necessity requires it to adapt and transform itself into a more effective democracy in order to survive.
Their efforts were almost perfect. Yes, they did anticipate the need for making improvements in their new government by way of Amendments; and they did anticipate the growth of the population. What they failed to appreciate was the incredible success of their new democratic culture, society, and economy that would attract millions of immigrants from all over the world. That success fueled an exponential growth of social change that changed the character of their young democracy in the following two centuries.