Territory size, is my guess. Both Russia and the US have relatively compliant populations, but also huge tracts of land. That makes it harder for relatively small communities to have “ownership” of their political masters. When the guy at the top can literally be at the other side of a continent, you can’t threaten him with the guillotine. This prevents a sense of community and shared responsibility from being developed, both for the people and their leaders.
You have to team up with strangers in a far off place and ask them to fight on your behalf - and there is little guarantee you can offer the same favor in return. Thus, the leadership is insulated from consequences. So long as they have freedom of movement, leaders are free to do as they wish.
There are many forms of power, and we must limit them for our leaders if we want our peoples to have a better future. Movement, money, breadth and depth of influence, all must be limited for those who lead.
Territory size, is my guess. Both Russia and the US have relatively compliant populations, but also huge tracts of land. That makes it harder for relatively small communities to have “ownership” of their political masters. When the guy at the top can literally be at the other side of a continent, you can’t threaten him with the guillotine. This prevents a sense of community and shared responsibility from being developed, both for the people and their leaders.
You have to team up with strangers in a far off place and ask them to fight on your behalf - and there is little guarantee you can offer the same favor in return. Thus, the leadership is insulated from consequences. So long as they have freedom of movement, leaders are free to do as they wish.
There are many forms of power, and we must limit them for our leaders if we want our peoples to have a better future. Movement, money, breadth and depth of influence, all must be limited for those who lead.