& hence your conclusion China is more democratic than India
Hey submit your thesis. You'll get your Phd
In India, the majority population are busy with surviving and most of them are illiterate or not educated enough to be involved in politics or discussion of policies, except voting. They actuallly have no say in politics except voting. And even in voting, their are forced or fooled to elect someone they don't know.
But in China, since the population are much better educated and more wealthy. It has more poeple who are involved in discussion about politics and policies. It has huge Internet population who are discussing, criticizing and giving suggestions about policies, their voices are being heard and adopted by the Chinese government.
Yes, it is true that Chinese can only curse the government, political leaders, say something like "overthrow the government" "the president is a stupid dog" on Internet. They can't speak like this on TV. But "being able to curse the government or leaders on TV" is not so important component in democracy. Involvement of policy discussion is, isn't it?
I feel in India, mostly the elites have a say in public and express whatever they want, but majority Indians have no idea what democracy is, so it is like elite democracy. While in China, those elites, public intellectuals are somehow constrained by the government, they can criticize, but can't pass some red line, like Tian'anmen Square, split the country. But ordinary Chinese can generally express freely. It is populace democracy.
Is China actually more democratic than India?
Should democracy only mean multi-party politics?
can't it be "people decide/influence the nation's politics/policies"?