A continuation of the original and the sequel.
You are correct, good sir. The USSR had the most liberal constitution in human history. Institutions don't matter as much as the people in charge of them.I dunno if institutions mattered as much as you guys think they do.
I dunno if institutions mattered as much as you guys think they do.
None of those really makes the difference, though. Institutions, culture, tradition, past history, all of those things inform the actions of individuals, but they never, ever dictate them. The American rebellion ended with a man in charge of the American military (such as it was) who was disinclined to use it to increase his own personal power and play warlord, but who also was able to use that military to enforce federal government. For various reasons, that chain of events didn't happen in nearly any of the former Spanish colonies. Some of them might be traced to institutional deficiencies, but I tend to think that a great deal of weight lies with the personalities of the men who built those states (or, in some cases, destroyed them).
It's not "Great Man" theory, it's contingency (which frequently gets slandered as "Great Man" historiography by Marxists and the like); I just pointed to George Washington because it was easier and succincter. He was obviously not the only Founding Father who "mattered". If I'd gone and talked about Madison and Mason and Jefferson and so on and so forth that post would've gotten really long and boring. And of course, the Founding Fathers weren't the only relevant people involved in the construction of American democracy that mattered, either. You can't point to any One Person or One Group of People. In large part, I think it was just because the Americans gelled in a way that the Bolivians or Colombians or Platans didn't.So it comes down to the actions of just one guy, lucky roll of the dice? That sounds like "Great Man" theory to me. Or are you saying the difference was that North Americans in general were collectively of a more democratic character than Latin Americans? That still doesn't explain Liberia, where all the leaders were of North American extraction and instituted very USA-like institutions and practices and yet still didn't manage to hold onto a true republic for more than a few generations. By 1900 it was a one party state and utterly corrupt.
Its a combination of luck (in terms of the leadership group that emerged, primarily Washington) and that the colonial experience under British rule had prepared the 13 colonies in a way that the various Spanish colonies were not, for self-rule.So it comes down to the actions of just one guy, lucky roll of the dice? That sounds like "Great Man" theory to me. Or are you saying the difference was that North Americans in general were collectively of a more democratic character than Latin Americans? That still doesn't explain Liberia, where all the leaders were of North American extraction and instituted very USA-like institutions and practices and yet still didn't manage to hold onto a true republic for more than a few generations. By 1900 it was a one party state and utterly corrupt.
The historical basis of their foundation.
Indeed.The historical basis of their foundation.
Camikaze said:What about the historical basis of their foundation required them, or caused them, to be 13 separate colonies rather than just 1 (or any other number) colony?
You could just ask the same quesion of Australia and get a good idea?