...we have to understand that there's always been an enormous gap between what those ruling America mean by "democracy", and what that word means to almost anyone else. According to the official version, of course, "democracy" is a system created by the founding fathers, based on checks and balances between president, Congress and judiciary. In fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution does it say anything about the US being a "democracy". Most defined democracy as collective self-governance by popular assemblies, and as such, they were dead set against it, arguing it would be prejudicial against the interests of minorities (the particular minority that was had in mind here being the rich).So true! The new capitalist class of North America were profoundly fearful of the town meetings and other popular assemblies. They countered such democratic tendencies by establishing huge voting districts or even state-wide candidates for the election of representatives. Given that roads were poor and the means of communication were rather primitive, it was difficult for ordinary people who might have the right to vote, such as small farm landholders, to organize any effective political action. (Nowadays, ruling class control of all major media insures their continued rule.) This new ruling class found that such an arrangement encouraged voter apathy since only the wealthy were known by most of the people in these huge districts. Some people of the ruling class even went so far as to claim that this was America's single greatest contribution to political theory.
Originally the gathering of the young nation's ruling class in 1787 was publicized as intended only to reform or revise the Articles of Confederation which was the constitution of the 13 colonies. Instead, this new landed and commercial aristocracy decided on a revolutionary course of their own design by crafting a whole new Constitution which centralized control over the nation under their supervision. Only by tacking on the Bill of Rights and the use of political chicanery, could they get the state assemblies to ratify it.
Contrary to official doctrine, the designers of the Constitution intentionally structured the government into three branches (a so-called system of "checks and balances") not to impede the development of authoritarian rule, but to serve as a bulwark against democratic influences from below. (One of the best single sources for further study on this subject that I know of is historian Woody Holton's book entitled, Unruly Americans.)
