India ranks 35th among 'flawed democracies'

[BanglaBhoot]

New Delhi: India's election juggernaut is on the roll.

So dramatic is the process that wide-eyed bystanders from the West are flocking here to watch the dust thrown up by the world's largest democratic exercise. But does that make us a perfect democracy? No, says a worldwide study, we need to work harder to join the elite club of perfect democracies.

The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2008 Democracy index ranks India 35th among "flawed democracies" of the world, five places short of the list of perfect specimens. Using 60 indicators such as civil liberties, political culture, public participation and government efficiency, the list classifies most western democracies as perfect along with a few from Asia and Central/South America.

Sri Lanka sits 22 places below us, while Pakistan and Bangladesh are ranked among hybrid regimes, one category above the authoritarian regimes.

Interestingly, Pakistan has managed to kick itself up thanks to the elections last year. Bangladesh, on the other hand, fell one level from being a flawed democracy.

All in all, said Manoj Vohra, director of research with the unit, India had not done badly. "While India's democracy, in technical terms, is flawed, it's close to joining the elite club of democracies... India is ahead of most emerging economies," he said.

Predictably, Indian politicians are not convinced by the span of the study. Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari says: "Whoever is responsible for this report needs to see a shrink. India is one country which has a functioning and vibrant democracy from the grassroots to the top. This is a country where you have panchayati raj institutions at village level, legislative assemblies in states and a parliament at the national level, all of which are regularly elected. Anyone who calls this a flawed democracy should needs to get his head examined."

The problem is that it takes more than well-organised electoral logistics to impress the unit. The level of voter enthusiasm varies wildly between Indian states. And coalition chaos has managed to drag India further down.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP spokesperson, said: "India does not need a lecture on democracy from biased western intellectuals. The people of this country have unfettered right to choose or unseat any party or leader whether at local, state or national level. We gave voting rights to all people regardless of educational level, and even to women in 1950 itself, when many countries of the world were still only thinking about it."

DNA: India: India ranks 35th among 'flawed democracies'

 

[spsk]

Totally agreed, In India politicians and Officers are still more powerful than people of India

 

[Goodperson]

while Pakistan and Bangladesh are ranked among hybrid regimes, one category above the authoritarian regimes.

Whats hybrid regime is it better than Democracy ?

 

[saiko]

i think a hybrid regime is one that alternates between military rule and democracy every 10 years .

and i think when the report says "above" that is not meant to mean better.

 

[Screaming Skull]

New Delhi: India's election juggernaut is on the roll.

So dramatic is the process that wide-eyed bystanders from the West are flocking here to watch the dust thrown up by the world's largest democratic exercise. But does that make us a perfect democracy? No, says a worldwide study, we need to work harder to join the elite club of perfect democracies.

The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2008 Democracy index ranks India 35th among "flawed democracies" of the world, five places short of the list of perfect specimens. Using 60 indicators such as civil liberties, political culture, public participation and government efficiency, the list classifies most western democracies as perfect along with a few from Asia and Central/South America.

Sri Lanka sits 22 places below us, while Pakistan and Bangladesh are ranked among hybrid regimes, one category above the authoritarian regimes.

Interestingly, Pakistan has managed to kick itself up thanks to the elections last year. Bangladesh, on the other hand, fell one level from being a flawed democracy.

All in all, said Manoj Vohra, director of research with the unit, India had not done badly. "While India's democracy, in technical terms, is flawed, it's close to joining the elite club of democracies... India is ahead of most emerging economies," he said.

Predictably, Indian politicians are not convinced by the span of the study. Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari says: "Whoever is responsible for this report needs to see a shrink. India is one country which has a functioning and vibrant democracy from the grassroots to the top. This is a country where you have panchayati raj institutions at village level, legislative assemblies in states and a parliament at the national level, all of which are regularly elected. Anyone who calls this a flawed democracy should needs to get his head examined."

The problem is that it takes more than well-organised electoral logistics to impress the unit. The level of voter enthusiasm varies wildly between Indian states. And coalition chaos has managed to drag India further down.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP spokesperson, said: "India does not need a lecture on democracy from biased western intellectuals. The people of this country have unfettered right to choose or unseat any party or leader whether at local, state or national level. We gave voting rights to all people regardless of educational level, and even to women in 1950 itself, when many countries of the world were still only thinking about it."

DNA: India: India ranks 35th among 'flawed democracies'

Dear Mr. Munshi I must say that you have a great knack for misleading people.

India is ranked 35th amongst a total of 167 countries considered, including Bangladesh, Pakistan and China.

Guess what India is ahead of all of its neighbors.

Here are the rankings and score on ten.

India- Rank 35- Score on ten-7.8

Sri Lanka- Rank 57- Score on ten-6.61

Bangladesh- Rank 91- Score on ten 5.52

Pakistan- Rank 108- Score on ten 4.46

China- Rank 136- Score on ten 3.04

The scores are averaged for five different categories namely-

• Electoral process and pluralism
• Functioning of government
• Political participation
• Political culture
• Civil liberties

Guess what- on the most important two aspects of democracy that directly affect peoples life ie, 'Electoral process and pluralism' and 'Civil liberties' India with scores of 9.58 and 9.41 respectively fares even better than USA (8.75 & 8.53) and UK (9.58 & 8.82).

Here is the main report. http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy Index 2008.pdf

I saw this long back when it appeared but didn't post it here thinking it would hurt other members sentiments.

And for all the Indian members who are disappointed after reading the lousy title and report, please don't be coz your country is doing just great.

 

[wtf]

Whats hybrid regime is it better than Democracy ?

Nope, It is worse than one. Their rankings put Pakistan and Bangladesh at 108 and 91 respectively. Oddly they put Sri Lanka at 57 and Israel at 38 - I thought both of them were pretty good democracies.

The actual survey result is below
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy Index 2008.pdf

 

[Goodperson]

Screaming Skull & wtf thanks for the clarification, truth may hurt some.

But DNA article was more sober and targeted for domestic consumption.

 

[wtf]

Screaming Skull & wtf thanks for the clarification, truth may hurt some.

But DNA article was more sober and targeted for domestic consumption.

My aim was not to hurt anyone, just confused about how oddly the countries stacked up. The whole of South Asia is a mess.

 

[wtf]

i think a hybrid regime is one that alternates between military rule and democracy every 10 years .

and i think when the report says "above" that is not meant to mean better.

Most countries in that grouping are either the "alternators" you mentioned or countries with strange constitutional setups which make them oligopolies. They also threw Russia in there for good measure.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

The major advantage of democracy is that it learns from the mistake. Military rule does not offer you that chance. Look at India. In 1950, it probably was the most rowdy, carnivalesque, smothering democracy. It has evolved during the course of 60 years, emerging as a global player, with the assurance of civil rights to all the citizens. And will continue to evolve as the game progresses.

I may be becoming complacent, but hey, HATS OFF to our democracy!!!!!

 

[karnivore]

HUH? What the...? Aren't we supposed to be a "fake" democracy.

Some prominent countries that we have beaten:

Electoral process & pluralism(9.58): Canada(9.17), Japan(8.75), US(8.75), Israel(8.75)

Functioning of govt.(8.21): US(7.86), Greece(7.5), France(7.5), Italy(6.43), Israel(7.5), Brazil(7.86)

Political participation(5.56): Brazil(4.44)

Political culture(6.25): Brazil(5.63)

Civil liberties(9.41): US(8.53), UK(8.82), France(9.12), Italy(9.12), Israel(5.29)

Some prominent countries that we have tied with:

Electoral process & pluralism(9.58): Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, UK, Greece, France, Italy, Brazil.

Functioning of govt.(8.21): Japan

Political participation(5.56): -

Political culture(6.25): -

Civil liberties(9.41): Germany, Spain, Japan, Greece, Brazil

Have to say, we are doing good (except for political participation & culture area) for a "fake" democracy.

PS: Figures in brackets are the score of that country, measured on a scale of 10.

Source

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Indians will vote but will they really have democracy?

The queues at polling stations next week will be real enough. But the prospects of voters' lives improving are an illusion

Sarmila Bose

As India prepares to go to the polls for its general election next week, a familiar tone of wonder has crept into commentary about “the world's largest democracy”.

Once again we are regaled with colourful stories about this huge exercise in people power - an electorate of about 714 million. Comparisons are made with the region's other countries, racked by military rule, civil war, “Talebanisation” and instability. Nobody disputes that Indian democracy has its flaws. But with 14 general elections and seven changes of government through the ballot box since 1977, even India's sternest critics acknowledge its remarkable achievement.

Yet India has failed to deliver even the basics of a decent life to most of its citizens. Indians vote, but they still go hungry. The International Food Policy Research Institute ranks India 66th out of 88 countries in its 2008 Global Hunger Index: hunger is at a “serious” level in four of its 17 biggest states, “alarming” in 12 and “extremely alarming” in 1. This poor performance is unrelated to state-level economic growth or who holds power: this is a systemic failure.

The scenes of villagers queuing at polling booths are real. The poor vote more than the rich, and rural turnout overtook urban 25 years ago. Yet nearly half of Indian children under 5 are stunted. India is beaten in school enrolment, parity between the sexes and child mortality indicators by Bangladesh, which has suffered repeated collapses of democracy.

In 60 years India has been unable to solve armed conflicts in Kashmir, its north east or with the growing communist “Naxalite” movement in its heartland. India's human rights record is poor - and not just in Kashmir or the north east. The latest figures from the National Human Rights Commission show that the largest numbers of complaints about abuses came from states outside conflict zones. Corruption is endemic. Contrary to assumptions in the West, anyone who has lived in India knows that the country doesn't really have the rule of law.

Democracy is supposed to produce greater accountability but India's democracy does not respond to the needs of its people. One excuse used to be that time was needed for democratic habits and values to put down roots. But India has had 60 years to reach maturity. And many political scientists believe that the mere process of going through elections may not be enough to guarantee the survival of democracy. Indeed, over time, confidence in all important institutions has eroded in India. The Election Commission, which is entrusted with ensuring that elections are free and fair, was one of the last to enjoy public respect (another being the Supreme Court). But this election will be overseen by a Chief Election Commissioner, who has been appointed by the present Government, but was deemed unfit for public office by a national inquiry commission because of his role in the “emergency” declared by Indira Gandhi from 1975-77.

The second excuse was that India's challenges were so vast that more time was needed to make democracy work. Political scientists have shown that the poorer a country, the greater the threat to the permanence of its democracy. India's per capita income remains below the risk threshold identified by these academics. But since embarking on economic reforms in 1991, “emergent” India's growth rate has risen dramatically and has been about 9 per cent a year for the past five years. This is good news for its politics. Yet despite that improvement, India's service to its people ranks below countries with neither democracy nor high growth.

There is something wrong with the story of democracy in India. Elections have not produced government that serves the greatest needs of the greatest number of people. Could this be because what India's politics has produced over six decades is not really a democracy? The political system clearly serves somebody's interest, but its political currency is not the common good, but the distribution of patronage by the elite.

India is a curious case of a “democracy” in which none of the important players believes in democracy. Almost all of India's political parties are personal autocracies, in which leadership is inherited, or contested among sons, daughters, widows, sons-in-law - and in two refreshingly “liberal” success stories, the female partners of male leaders. The Congress party has long been a family retainership masquerading as a political party.

The most significant political development in the past 25 years has been the rise of parties based on identity - regional, caste or religious. The only two parties whose appeal is ideological and whose leadership is not determined by family relationships are the communists and the Hindu nationalists. But neither party is a standard-bearer of inclusive parliamentary democracy.

Two potential future prime ministers who - unlike the nice Dr Manmohan Singh - have real political power are Narendra Modi. of the Hindu nationalist party (BJP), and Mayawati, leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which represents the lowest in the caste system. Mr Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, is formidably able, but will be forever stained by his willingness to ride to power in 2002 on the corpses of his Muslim fellow-citizens.

Mayawati, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, has happily allied with both the BJP and the Congress party, misled Parliament and transferred hundreds of civil servants every time she took power in the state.

She throws lavish birthday parties for herself, bedecked in jewellery, and has been accused of misappropriating her party's funds. Her political support rests not on welfare programmes or economic policies that help the downtrodden, but on the vicarious “dignity” that her own advancement brings them - last year she emerged among the top 20 income-tax payers in India.

She is emblematic of an India that is not a democracy, but more a competitive autocracy, in which authoritarian forces (still) seek legitimacy and access to resources through the ritual of elections. Just as India has taken cricket and changed it for ever, it has adopted “democracy” and transformed it into its own unique political game.

Sarmila Bose is a senior research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford

 

[godsavetheworld]

Here's more.
1) India is the only country ranked in the top 35, having a population>100,000,000.

2) The only country with a population>100,000,000 having a civil liberty score>9.
Our nearest competitor is:
India(1.1 Billion): 9.41
Brazil (191 million): 8.96
US(population 306 million): 8.41,
Bangladesh(162 million) 7.35,
Indonesia(230 million) 6.76,
Pakistan(165 million) 5.0

Questions, answer to which determined a major share of India's score:

46. Is there freedom of expression and protest (bar only generally accepted restrictions such as banning advocacy of violence)?
1: Yes
0.5: Minority view points are subject to some official harassment. Libel laws restrict heavily scope for free expression
0: No


53. The degree of religious tolerance and freedom of religious expression.
Are all religions permitted to operate freely, or are some restricted? Is the right to worship permitted both publicly and privately? Do some religious groups feel intimidated by others, even if the law requires equality and protection?
1: High
0.5: Moderate
0: Low

 

[Goodperson]

Indians will vote but will they really have democracy?

[

Feeble way to divert from the topic when the topic Boomeranged tsk.. tsk..

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Feeble way to divert from the topic when the topic Boomeranged tsk.. tsk..

Just because some Indians responded to the original article doesn't mean it boomeranged on me. The latest article just shut them up again.