>

So you’re just going to ignore the obvious fact that the embargo makes life worse for Cubans, and Vietnam does not have an embargo against it, but is an active major trade partner, as well as tourism partner with the United States? Surprised Pikachu that Vietnam is doing better overall lmao.
The OECD publishes data concerning trust of the public in the government in general. Unsurprisingly, trust in government is highest in rich countries with multi-party systems, low corruption and long democratic traditions. It tends to be lower in poorer countries, two-party systems and new(er) democracies or authoritarian states with relatively higher corruption. >

Another thing the higher rated countries have in common are they're small.  The US has so many competing interests that no matter who gets elected and how effectively they govern a good 40% of the country is going to despise the government. >

The countries low on the list are also mostly small. Turns out that the US is pretty large compared to most other countries. >

Look at the bottom 10 and top 10 (granted 11th and 12th highest are "large compared the the 10 that precede then).  None of those top 10 break 10M in population, the bottom 10 have several large countries, and the ones that are small tend to be former soviet states.  Obviously size isn't the only factor at play. But a small population is likely to have common values and a similar view of the role their government should play. >

Well if you say you don't trust the government in China you get reeducated until you do, so I'm not sure I really trust those figures.  None of those 3 are part of the data set I commented on.  Also none of those countries are particularly homogeneous. >


if you say you don't trust the government in China you get reeducated until you do

lol this is total nonsense >

Yeah China is an absolute bastion of freedom of expression such nonsense. >

lot of other gray areas in between "absolute bastion of freedom" and "the state will brainwash you into loving it" >

Sure but China is way closer to the second than the first. >

In Germany, loads of governments have enjoyed a very broad "silent" support, even over the last couple of decades. "Politician" was still a bad word, but up until fairly recently (maybe until the end of Merkel's third administration in 2017), the government was viewed largely positively by a considerable majority of the population, in a way that would feel quite strange to anyone from the US for example (although it's less of a "we love these guys" and more a "we tolerate and appreciate these guys" thing). >

It’s seems like Germany just likes moderates who are competent and they don’t need much else beyond that >

Germans like politicians that work quietly. Angela Merkel was the epitome of this. Like her or not, she never showed any traces of vanity, rarely spoke out loudly and mostly just did her job without trying to impress people or make herself look good in the public eye.
If you watched Game of Thrones, there’s a very fitting quote by Tywin Lannister: Everyone who needs to say that he’s the king is no true king.
Angela Merkel never needed to point out that she’s the chancellor and simultaneously the most powerful woman on earth. >

People often expect too much from politicians.  That ranges from assuming they have powers that they do not in the office they have, or assuming that they have the votes needed to pass legislation to assuming that complex problems have "easy" solutions and so if the politician doesn't solve the complex problem with the "easy" solution the voter has spent 5 minutes thinking about, then something must be wrong with the politician.  
It also comes down to the fact that humans are flawed creatures and all of them make mistakes.  
Also, some of them really are genuinely terrible.  Some actually want terrible things.  Some try to do good but are incompetent.  Some are good at winning elections but bad at writing or passing laws. Some are parts of minority factions who never have any actual power, so gradually learn that all they really are is a type of gadfly. >

This is a thought that has struck me as well in recent years when I've gotten to experience living in two very different countries when it comes to trust in the political system.
Am currently living in Bulgaria, and they had a government elected early in 2022 that was gaining lots of traction for trying to reduce corruption and tackling some of the larger issues of the country. People in general seemed optimistic when they were elected, but it did not take many months before people lost faith and trust. They were later in 2022 removed from power after a motion of no confidence. 
I'd like to know if the population of Bulgaria is expecting too much too fast. They believe there are easy solutions to eradicating corruption and lose faith when changes are not quickly noticeable.
But I also believe it's based on history. Countries that have been under occupation, have had political systems torn down and completely replaced, and have not been able to slowly evolve politically are prone to exploitation. The introduction of communism and the attempted conversion from communism to democracy were done too fast, presenting opportunities for people with not the best intentions to gain power and exploit their position. Most people in Bulgaria have lived their lives with these sudden changes, and defaults to believing the government is not trustworthy or working to benefit them. >

One thing America has is a ton of status quo bias and veto points.  Countries with rapid change expect rapid change in the future.  For good and for bad, the US system makes it hard to change things.  A party can take the House and not take the Senate - or take the Senate and House and not the presidency.  Or take all three and have challenges come from the states or Supreme Court. >

People are generally happy with their politicians. This is true even in the US. It is the politicians from other areas that people have a problem with. For example, I am sure that Nancy Pelosi is very much liked and well thought of in San Francisco by the people who actually elected her. She won her last two elections with greater than 75% margins. 
However, if you talk to people who don't actually vote for her, say in the area where I live or in Tennessee or Ohio. Her approval rating is not as high. 
Politician approval rating is a common problem. People have an issue with Congress and Congress Representatives. And Congress has a very low approval rating in general. But for the most part, those same people have high opinions of their Congress Representative and continue to reelect those Representatives every two years for decades. IMO, we need a better way to measure congressional approval overall because the current way of measuring this is inaccurate to what is really going on. >

That's actually a really good point, I haven't thought of it. Perhaps instead of asking for favorability opinions on congress as a single entity, pollsters should ask for each districts approval of their elected officials and then aggregate them into an average. >

The people of Singapore seem genuinely content with the long-running governance of the People's Action Party, who have won solid majorities in every election held since 1959 (which covers Singapore's entire existence as an independent state).  They won 61.23% of the vote at the last election in 2020 and 83 out of 103 seats.  This was widely seen as an unusually poor result for them.
They have quasi-authoritarian tendencies but elections in Singapore are free and (mostly) fair.  They have been credited for making Singapore a prosperous and harmonious society with a high human development index and exceptionally low crime.  And they have retained Singapore's independence when surrounded by much larger and more powerful countries. >

Singapore is an impressive place as long as you don’t count the opinions of the exploited lower classes found in the adjacent countries.  Cheap labor and natural resources from Malaysia really made it possible. >

Yeah exactly, maybe I'm exaggerating but it would be kind of like if the Bay Area broke off of the US or if Shenzhen broke off of China. They are wealthy port cities that benefit from the populations they are attached to. Upon checking I guess that already happened through Hong Kong. >

Right, it’s all hyperconnected so maybe OP’s question can’t be answered because a healthy government might exist only because other governments are weaker.  Idk.  It’s all so complex. >

Vatican City? Joking aside any incumbent is going to be ‘popular’ while a minority won’t like them. You always think of your own rep as good and everyone one else as suspect (well if your person won at least). Governance is hard and when you are out of power the best way to call attention to the differences between you and your opponent is to call out how bad a job they are doing. You call our mistakes and disregard successes so you get the job instead. Now powerless monarchies can be a bit different because how do you blame someone who has no real control? For instance the monarchy has been seen as a sign of national pride for the UK, but even they bounce in popularity through the years. I believe Japan still has a figurehead Emperor who is also fairly beloved.  
I honestly think that the only system that you could have where a significant portion of the population truly loves their leadership would be some kind of religious dictatorship. Somehow linking the spiritual to the governance. But even then you’ll certainly still have detractors. >

The thing about most modern monarchies is that, while they may or may not have a great deal of reserve power, they are (generally) heavily removed from the political side of things. You might see things happen here and there that might look or be politically motivated but all in all, most monarchs do their best to stay removed from the political nonsense so they can focus on and represent the country as a whole. I found an article/study a while back that pointed towards the most democratic countries actually being constitutional monarchies. >

Thailand is a weird one where it seems that a formerly pacified Monarch is clawing back power from the other branches of government. I don’t recall another time I’ve heard of literal protests against the Monarch. Well, not in a modern sense; France and Russia had some rather effective protests in the past…. >

China's central government has very high approval ratings according to a Harvard study. >

The sort of people on reddit are usually a lot more unhappy with their countries generally
There are a couple of different metrics available to us. One that comes to mind is this Pew Survey from 2017 which surveyed people asking whether or not they trusted the national government of their country to do the right thing
Ofc this is out of date as these sorts of questions aren't asked as much. If you want something more consistent, Morning Consult takes a weekly approval rating of national leaders, though this is only for the top job and not "politicians" generally >

Try Iraq, my uncle voted checked mark No on voting, then all the sudden my entire family tree became most wanted in the country. >

In North Korea everyone loves the dear leader and the communist party, just ask anyone. /s >

Communist sympathizers love to say that communists are happy with their governments and that it is why they don’t need actual political freedom, because they would choose the communists anyway.
But in general it is (and has been for a lot of years) the case that a large part of any country dislikes what the leadership is doing at any given time, when they are allowed to voice that displeasure. >

This is definitively proven by the utterly abysmal results reconstructed communist parties scored in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. >

Also expats from communist countries vote right wing out of sheer fear of the extreme end of leftist politics. >

Indeed. Cubans who left Cuba for Florida are a big voting block for the Republican party. On some level, you can't really blame them. >


you can’t really blame them

If you’re still mad today, that your asshole grandfather got his farm seized where he was exploiting workers before that, maybe you just need to suck it up and move on with your life.
Fortunately, 5000 boomers die every day. Most young Cuban Americans think the embargo is stupid. And really it is, it’s basically just a knife in the eye of another country because we don’t like that the people there chose to have a revolution (which negatively affected our corporate interests there). Very funny, considering that is the origin of this country. >

Well when you bring up "exploding" workers, that does sound pretty harsh  ;)
And my personal opinion is much closer to your own. I would have supported Obama if he had gone as far as lifting the embargo. And Cuba will indeed have a period of growth and change once it's been re-connected to the world at large. >

This is the thing that is so exhausting to me about Cuban “refugees” in America, and to a lesser extent, the people in charge in Taiwan considering themselves the “true government in exile of China.“ 
At a certain point you just have to move on. This is shit that is going on throughout human history. Now that is not to say that I would agree with Taiwan being ruthlessly suppressed or anything like that, but, just be real. You’re not going to reverse the change of government that happened decades ago, barring some unpredictable, gigantic upheaval. Continuing to campaign on anger that originated half a century ago it’s just clown shoes. Sure the older people who remember the revolution itself might buy in, but the younger generations who are further and further divorced from that trauma rightfully have no reason to really give a fuck and in fact, think it’s bullshit that a small group of salty old people basically gets to have disproportionate influence over how our government treats another legitimate government. >

Ma guy, Taiwan maintains the claim because disowning it is an effective declaration of independence, and by extension, an invitation for the PRC to attempt to invade or just to start shelling the island for the slight. >

Imagine a job that gives individuals the power to ruin enemies lives or grant favors to friends in exchange for "speaking fees" or other such "non-bribe" bribes. The job doesn't pay particularly well and there really aren't any qualifications for the job other than some level of charisma to get people to check a box with your name on it. What kind of people do you think that job is going to attract? Best of the best, or power hungry POSs? 
That's why politicians have a bad name. They have virtually unchecked power in just about every country and they use it to line their pockets and those of their cronies. They have the reputation they deserve. >

Power does not corrupt, it attracts the coruptible. - Frank Herbert >

Cuban's approval rating of their government and constitution has barely wavered from the 1959 revolution to even the ratification of the 2019 constitution. 
Nowhere near perfect or free from corruption, but our vertical accountability system pretty much let's any municipality have the power to recall local or national level elections/legislation. Much more efficient than a horizontal accountability system where you have to depend on other national branches of government to do it for you imo. There's also massive support here for the healthcare system as well as the act to ban political parties campaigning and funding select nominations.
Edit: yikes, Americans really don't like it when people talk even slightly positively of their enemies lmao. Bring on the downvotes I guess. >

Lol and what happens to people who disagree with the current regime?  Ofc the government has a high "approval ". >

I've disagreed with our governments policies and have protested several times for reforms and additional constitutional amendments, from advocating for free speech, to adding a presumption of innocence clause, to codifying LGBTQ rights and more. I've never once had anything bad happen to me.
As I said to the other commenter, there was over 700,000 no votes to the constitution. Are you going to tell me that all of those no's were suppressed or arrested? >

The fact that free speech doesn't already exist makes any polling inherently untrustworthy. >

How so? What nation in this world hasn't suppressed free speech that challenges the status quo at some point? Hell, most of the 20th century, America had free speech laws but still managed to pass, with very little difficulty, laws suppressing political movements such as the CCA of 1954, the Sedition Act, Truman's Loyalty Order, etc.
Every nation at some point has suppressed free speech, especially when the movement being suppressed is influenced by foreign enemy nations. It's naive to think otherwise.
Also it wasn't polling, it was literally the culmination of statistical reporting from the thousands of municipal referendum committees regarding our 2019 constitutional referendum, all of which are open to citizens of said municipalities to observe the counting and contest any suspicion of manipulation. >

Yeah, you’re missing the point of many of the people arguing with you. There is no way to trust electoral numbers that come out of Cuba, considering Cuba is a one party authoritarian country. There is no way to trust the election results coming out of there. >


There is no way to trust electoral numbers that come out of Cuba, considering Cuba is a one party authoritarian country.

By this logic, considering as I said before almost every nation in existence has resorted to authoritarian tactics to suppress political movements and would if the status quo was actually threatened, almost all electoral numbers that come out would be unreliable. Let's stop being naive here and pretending every nation wouldn't resort to it to protect national security. 

There is no way to trust the election results coming out of there.

Except we do, because as I also said before, we have procedures and committees in place to keep the election process transparent as well as safeguards to remove anyone from office the public deems insufficient or corrupt. This ranges from literally allowing any citizens to be present at the ballot counting, to regular constituent meetings to discuss public opinion and address concerns, to vertical constitutional processes that allow municipalities to challenge any position and issue a recall, etc.
Let's actually put this into context, heres a very short history of 20th century Cuba. Between 1930 and 1960, Cuba went through several revolutions, coups, and often very bloody confrontations. From the very bloody revolution against Machado in 1930 that placed Quesada in power, it was immediately followed by the military Sergeants revolt by Batista, who dominated Cuban politics for the next 25 years through a series of puppet-presidents. In 1952, when facing certain electoral defeat, Batista, once again, led a military coup that preempted the election. Back in power, and receiving financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans. This leaves us at the 1959 revolution, which had an overwhelming support of the majority of Cubans. There have been no other revolutions since then.
Trust me when I say that if elections are illegitimate in Cuba, even during prosperous times, Cubans are not shy to revolt. If Cuban civil liberties were actually threatened, they would have revolted decades ago. Remember friends, historical context matters. >

No, I know you trust them. The rest of the free world doesn’t. Frankly, authoritarianism and transparency are completely mutually exclusive. >

Me and the vast majority of the island here. It doesn't seem like you're actually engaging in what I'm saying so I'll see myself out. Have a nice day 👌 >

There’s no “if”. Any election that is one party is illegitimate. Your argument is completely circular. >

I never hear any complaints from North Koreans who live in North Korea.
There was that guy in China who stood in front of the tank at Tiannamen Sq., but he’s no longer dissatisfied.
Cubans are generally happy with their government except for the gusanos who are trying to cross over into the USA. >


Cubans are generally happy with their government except for the gusanos who are trying to cross over into the USA.

Shame on you, according to Americans who have never been to the island, these gusanos are entirely representative of the views of millions of Cubans who have stayed on the island. >

Shame on you, according to Americans who have never been to the island, these gusanos are entirely representative of the views of millions of Cubans who have stayed on the island.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
If that is true, why do they tolerate it? Haiti revolted against their French slavemasters all by themselves. Nobody aided them.
Remember the revolt in Romania back in 1989? They arrested the dictator Ceaușescu and his wife Elena, tried them and executed them. Romanians did that without outside help. The CIA didn't help them. How many African countries revolted and got rid of their colonial masters? Of course, it would not be easy. Many Cubans would die in such a revolution. But when a people really and truly want to determine their own destiny, they can do it.
I believe that Cubans in large part loved Fidel Castro continue to love his successors and their brand of Communism because it taps into resentment of the rich and the USA. Yes, maybe they are miserable, but that is offset by the joy Cubans get when their government sticks a finger in the eye of the USA.
Even a Communist country need not be a Cuba. Vietnam is Communist (at least officially) but life is much better for Vietnamese in Vietnam than for Cubans in Cuba under the grotesque form of Communism practiced in Cuba.