China's Third Plenum and India's 'Dictator Envy'

[Götterdämmerung]

I really dont need to get into this.
If you are interested in the point of democracy and the benefits of a properly functioning democracy a quick google search will yield half a dozen research papers.

So, google will yield half dozen research papers on the benefits of a properly functioning democracy. When will the Indian gov. download them and implement them?

 

[Contrarian]

So, google will yield half dozen research papers on the benefits of a properly functioning democracy. When will the Indian gov. download them and implement them?

That is the question that everyone is saying isnt it.
That Indian democracy is inefficient.

And the answer is also visible if you care to read the posts above - when the people become educated enough to start demanding results and efficiency from the politicians.

 

[livingdead]

What is the basic principle of democracy? One man one vote. Yes, people in the first world get to vote, and so do those from almost all 3rd world countries today. How is that superiority over China? (One-party system is not a dictatorship)

Democracy is democracy, there is no such term as India's democracy or US's. Democracy is just a governance model, it doesn't provide answers to social and economic problems. They are quite mutually exclusive.

I am not sure how democracy works in china. Do chinese people get multiple candidates to choose from? Is there a concept of unversal adult suffrage in china?
what do you mean mutually exclusive? you mean if you get one you dont get other?

 

[Götterdämmerung]

That is the question that everyone is saying isnt it.
That Indian democracy is inefficient.

And the answer is also visible if you care to read the posts above - when the people become educated enough to start demanding results and efficiency from the politicians.

Well, that's axactly the problem with developing countries implementing a political system designed for developed countries. There has been no one functioning developed country (with a pop larger than 10 million, which is very little) that started industrialisation with a democracy. The few micro countries were only able to develop with democracy were surrounded by rich and developed countries.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

The topic is mixing up two completely separate issues.

First is Democracy. Democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. But it does not necessary mean efficient governance or even honest governance. Only that the probability of getting a Just government, a sensitive government, a efficient and honest government increases in a democracy.

Second is Governance. Governance is independent of Democracy. Governance can take place even under dictatorship, under communism, under a king etc. Only that the probability of getting a Just government, a sensitive government, a efficient and honest government increases without democracy is historically Low.

There are always exceptions that defy the rule, but that is what they are. Exceptions.

 

[Fattyacids]

I really dont need to get into this.
If you are interested in the point of democracy and the benefits of a properly functioning democracy a quick google search will yield half a dozen research papers.

Figure out the basic terms and definitions before jumping onto those research papers. If you know what you're talking, you would know a democracy is merely a political ideology. Problems that plague your country, such as corruption and low literacy, are social issues idiosyncratic to your country whether you're a democracy or dictatorship. All a democratic system would do is to eliminate the concentration of power, democracy by itself is no magic pill to solve all social and economic problems.

 

[livingdead]

Well, that's axactly the problem with developing countries implementing a political system designed for developed countries. There has been no one functioning developed country (with a pop larger than 10 million, which is very little) that started industrialisation with a democracy. The few micro countries were only able to develop with democracy were surrounded by rich and developed countries.

countries that force people to wait till industrialization is complete are sitting on a time bomb. When knew arabs spring will explode on our face. Most people who defied bullets were from countries that are poor and less industrialized.

Democracy might not solve people's problems, but they get a say in the affairs and hence ultimate decider of their own fate. For most, that is an acceptable place to be in. Democracy is a pressure valve in such societies.
Countries that are not industrialized also tend to produce tyrants and corrupt leaders in a non democratic setup, which is much worse than having a chaotic democracy.

If one can gurantee that non democratic leaders will be sagacious and lead their country to prosperity, I might reluctantly agree.(even if its against my belief of equality). Issues is more often they are found to be corrupt and they abuse power for their own goal. Democracy attempts to check that.

 

[Contrarian]

Well, that's axactly the problem with developing countries implementing a political system designed for developed countries. There has been no one functioning developed country (with a pop larger than 10 million, which is very little) that started industrialisation with a democracy. The few micro countries were only able to develop with democracy were surrounded by rich and developed countries.

We are breaking ground in that area.
Look at Pakistan on the other hand as another example - even with more Dictatorship and Army rule more than half its life and democracy for the smaller part, we are more developed than them.

I think the reason for that is education. India has a much higher literacy level than Pakistan and so is more developed than them.

As more Indians grow more literate, the functioning of democracy will get smoother and more efficient.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

countries that force people to wait till industrialization is complete are sitting on a time bomb. When knew arabs spring will explode on our face. Most people who defied bullets were from countries that are poor and less industrialized.

Democracy might not solve people's problems, but they get a say in the affairs and hence ultimate decider of their own fate. For most, that is an acceptable place to be in. Democracy is a pressure valve in such societies.
Countries that are not industrialized also tend to produce tyrants and corrupt leaders in a non democratic setup, which is much worse than having a chaotic democracy.

If one can gurantee that non democratic leaders will be sagacious and lead their country to prosperity, I might reluctantly agree.(even if its against my belief of equality). Issues is more often they are found to be corrupt and they abuse power for their own goal. Democracy attempts to check that.

I agree that Democracy is a safety valve. That is a logical argument, and indeed it seems to work as a safety valve in a majority of cases.

The issue is the timing.

Why is it, that the best performing economy in the entire developing world is China? What happened to the other developing countries that happen to be democracies? What happened to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo? Even the developing democracies that perform better than average, do not perform anywhere close to China in terms of economy.

Historically, most advanced democracies went through their industrialization stage under some form of authoritarian government. East Asian countries obviously, but also European countries who became industrialized countries while they were still monarchies. Even the USA became a superpower long before black people had an equal and fair right to vote in 1968.

So the argument becomes, is it better to be under an authoritarian, or semi-authoritarian (like Singapore) system during the industrialization phase?

That's the question that everyone is waiting to see. And India is not really helping the argument, considering they had a similar GDP to China in 1990, but have severely underperformed after that.

 

[Fattyacids]

I am not sure how democracy works in china. Do chinese people get multiple candidates to choose from? Is there a concept of unversal adult suffrage in china?
what do you mean mutually exclusive? you mean if you get one you dont get other?

We are not a democracy. There is no universal suffrage, we don't get to vote. It's a one-party system.

Mutually exclusive: democracy is just a political ideology, social and economics issues are social and economics issues. A democracy has no bearing on social or economics issues that a country is facing. If you're not a democracy, you still have to face the same issues. Contrarian argued if there is a functioning democracy, everything would fall into place. what a fallacy. The reverse is more likely to be true.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

There seems to be some strange deductions coming from Indian members. Lets look at history of functioning democratic countries. Non of the big developed countries had democracy during their industrialisation. NON!

Their commonness were an autocratic system that forced industrialisation, education and nation building onto its citizens. The first real democracy happened after WWI and even then not all were successful, see Hitler Germany.

Yes, of course, dictatorship does not necessarily result into a benevolent and caring dictator, see NKorea. But all functioning democracies were dictatorial/ authoritarian during their development stage.

The Arab Spring happened because there was not much development despite being dictatorial and outside forces meddling into their development were of no help either. The US is not interested to make any of their Arab client state into another SKorea or Japan.

 

[livingdead]

I agree that Democracy is a safety valve. That is a logical argument, and indeed it seems to work as a safety valve in a majority of cases.

The issue is the timing.

Why is it, that the best performing economy in the entire developing world is China? What happened to the other developing countries that happen to be democracies? What happened to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo? Even the developing democracies that perform better than average, do not perform anywhere close to China in terms of economy.

Historically, most advanced democracies went through their industrialization stage under some form of authoritarian government. East Asian countries obviously, but also European countries who became industrialized countries while they were still monarchies. Even the USA became a superpower long before black people had an equal and fair right to vote in 1968.

So the argument becomes, is it better to be under an authoritarian, or semi-authoritarian (like Singapore) system during the industrialization phase?

That's the question that everyone is waiting to see. And India is not really helping the argument, considering they had a similar GDP to China in 1990, but have severely underperformed after that.

Democracy is a model that is successfully replicated around the world. There are very few taker for chinese model (the maturity which you got through a painful process in which thousands died).
showing 1 or two exception and wondering why is it not the rule is missing the point.
The question can be flipped and said why not many countries replicated chinese model? why other communist countries could evolve to such model that cound have worked as alternative to democracy.
If you are generally in favour of authoritarian model, I guess statistics is quite clear. 1 brilliant china (since 70s) does not change it, nor did a brilliant soviet till 90s.

 

[anjaneyashruti]

Why is it, that the best performing economy in the entire developing world is China? What happened to the other developing countries that happen to be democracies? What happened to Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo? Even the developing democracies that perform better than average, do not perform anywhere close to China in terms of economy.

Historically, most advanced democracies went through their industrialization stage under some form of authoritarian government. East Asian countries obviously, but also European countries who became industrialized countries while they were still monarchies. Even the USA became a superpower long before black people had an equal and fair right to vote in 1968.

So the argument becomes, is it better to be under an authoritarian, or semi-authoritarian (like Singapore) system during the industrialization phase?

That's the question that everyone is waiting to see. And India is not really helping the argument, considering they had a similar GDP to China in 1990, but have severely underperformed after that.

China is the best performing economy because a Democratic US decided to encourage china to open up and help build its economy to counter Russia. Its historical background and Geographical location and size too helped its case. Democracy is not the only factor that pushes forward economic development. There are other factors too.

Historically it has been proven that democracy is the one that gives the greatest probability of success and also provides stability to continue that success.

About India, Democracy does not necessary mean the best and brightest ideas get implemented, it only ensures the most acceptable ideas get implemented. Just as in life, efficient is not the only thing that matter.

 

[livingdead]

We are not a democracy. There is no universal suffrage, we don't get to vote. It's a one-party system.

Mutually exclusive: democracy is just a political ideology, social and economics issues are social and economics issues. A democracy has no bearing on social or economics issues that a country is facing. If you're not a democracy, you still have to face the same issues. Contrarian argued if there is a functioning democracy, everything would fall into place. what a fallacy. The reverse is more likely to be true.

ok.. you meant to say these things are indepenent, because they are definitely not mutually exclusive. Democracy does not ensure that you will suffer economic hardship.
The historical argument of how western countries came to get democracy has been repeated many times here. I am not sure why. Why does a country freshly independent from colonialism need to go through those phases?
lot of europe got rich throw slavery, surely a newly independent country should not start at that level?

And who will be the dictator/ruler? how will you decide that?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Democracy is a model that is successfully replicated around the world. There are very few taker for chinese model (the maturity which you got through a painful process in which thousands died).
showing 1 or two exception and wondering why is it not the rule is missing the point.
The question can be flipped and said why not many countries replicated chinese model? why other communist countries could evolve to such model that cound have worked as alternative to democracy.
If you are generally in favour of authoritarian model, I guess statistics is quite clear. 1 brilliant china (since 70s) does not change it, nor did a brilliant soviet till 90s.

So why is it that China has by far the best economic performance in the developing world?

Take a look at any "developing democracy" around the world. In Africa, in the Middle East, even in your own neighborhood (South Asia), including your own country.

What you are doing is risky, and it shows. The standard throughout modern history is authoritarianism during the developing stage, and democracy during the developed stage. That's how it has always been done.

You guys are trying to go for a democracy first, before you are industrialized.

Even more, India is trying to skip the industrialization stage, and go straight for services.

Neither of those has been successful before for any major country. You're the one taking the very risky path, and so far it doesn't seem to be working for you. In terms of development indicators (life expectancy, maternal mortality ratio, etc), you are the 2nd worst in South Asia, behind countries like Bangladesh. Whereas China's indicators are almost the same as many already developed countries.

I think Democracy is a great system, but for developed countries. For developing countries it has an awful track record, and you can see that all around you.