Indian democracy loses to Chinese efficiency - by 160 votes

[chauism]

By Dipankar De Sarkar
London, May 13 (IANS) As millions of Indians prepared for Wednesday’s last round of elections, India’s much-lauded democracy was given a thorough drubbing by China’s efficiency-driven one-party system.

The result of some hard-headed voting at the end of a lively debate on India and China at the Royal Geographical Society in London Tuesday baffled many - India started out marginal favourites, but then lost heavily.

At the start of the debate, 266 members of the audience voted for the motion, ‘The future belongs to India, not China,’ while 223 voted against and 221 were undecided.

At the end, when the audience was asked to vote again, the don’t-knows had dwindled to 23, but a massive swing saw China take the day with 421 votes and India lumbering behind with 261 votes, five fewer than it had just over an hour ago.

It was, declared moderator Edward Lucas of The Economist magazine - and author of ‘The New Cold War’, one of the “sharpest” swings he had seen.

Speaking for India at the event were author and former CEO of Proctor & Gamble India, Gurcharan Das, veteran broadcaster Mark Tully and the international economist Deepak Lal.

The Chinese side had an equally distinguished team - Charles Powell, private secretary and foreign policy advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Malaysian-born economist Danny Quah, and Hong Kong businessman and socialite David Tang.

The difference, it appears, lay in how the two countries went about preparing for the future - or indeed the debate itself.

Although speakers on both sides agreed that in an ideal world the future would belong to India’s democracy, Powell - a former bureaucrat - told the audience that that was just “wishful thinking.”

“It may be what ought to happen, but it’s not going to happen,” Powell said.

“China has a strategy to own the future, to reclaim what it regards as its rightful leading place in the world. And it has a system of government that is geared to achieving just that. It is disciplined, single-minded and dynamic in pursuit of its goal in a way that a democracy cannot be,” Powell said.

As in the world outside, so inside the historic debating hall of the Royal Geographic Society.

The Chinese side were a thoroughly rehearsed lot - Powell spoke of rehearsals with the other speakers in his office.

And the Indian team? You guessed it: as the articulate and passionate Gurcharan Das later told IANS: “I don’t know about the others, but I certainly went through my speech several times.”

This is my first time posting. Right after I read this article, I have did a lot of search of this debate online, but to my surprise, even though this debate took place in London, there is no any western new sources that write about this event. Only Indian news outlets are publishing it. So I am just wondering if any of you have any insight to it.

 

[aimarraul]

who cares about their election,we have our own mess to clear up

 

[third eye]

Huh !!

Where is the comparison between a democracy & a one party regime ?

 

[chauism]

Huh !!

Where is the comparison between a democracy & a one party regime ?

If you read the article carefully the comparison is actually about the efficiency of the different political system. It is not about protecting human rights or any of those idealogical mambo jumbos. It is about how to achieve one's goal in the long run.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

If you read the article carefully the comparison is actually about the efficiency of the different political system. It is not about protecting human rights or any of those idealogical mambo jumbos. It is about how to achieve one's goal in the long run.

Interesting that you talk of long run, something that India uses to justify the democratic system & rightfully so. Authoritative one party communist systems no doubt are way more efficient than something like Indian democracy, composing of multiple ethnic & religious groups. Say China overcomes the poverty & has all the necessary infrastructure by 2015. Say India is 15 years behind & achieves the same thing by 2030.

Are 15 years really worth for China for having a very poor record in terms of human rights? When you start comparing the quality of life of citizens in both countries from 2030, see what we have got. Chinese live in a one party authoritative regime, where citizens do not have most of the basic rights like real estate & everything. Indians OTOH, live in an equally developed country, and enjoy the benefits of democracy & human rights.

In short, 15 years is the price which we are paying to get the things done Indian way. And we do believe that it is worth the wait.

 

[third eye]

If you read the article carefully the comparison is actually about the efficiency of the different political system. It is not about protecting human rights or any of those idealogical mambo jumbos. It is about how to achieve one's goal in the long run.

Thats just the point !

What you loosely call ' mumbo jumbo' is the essence. If I don't have to ask anyone or take the people along with me in decision making then how do I compare with some one who does & has to ?

 

[chauism]

Thats just the point !

What you loosely call ' mumbo jumbo' is the essence. If I don't have to ask anyone or take the people along with me in decision making then how do I compare with some one who does & has to ?

For the decision making part, in case you don't know even with an one party system, there are still people at the different ends of the spectrum within the party itself at all levels of the organs of the government. The government still have to listen to the mass for their opinions, and this tread is becoming more and more apparent in China. It is just that some of those opinion can be disregarded or ignored more easily if it conflicts with its goal. All the decisions made in China are not by one person or the poliburo alone, they are the final outcome of series debates between professionals who are experts on those issues, and are executed by people who had been selected through meritocracy without the interference of oppositions. There is a reason that people call China's government a group of technocrats.

I think Sir Charles Powell outlined this comparison very clearly through this:

Although speakers on both sides agreed that in an ideal world the future would belong to India’s democracy, Powell - a former bureaucrat - told the audience that that was just “wishful thinking.”

“It may be what ought to happen, but it’s not going to happen,” Powell said.

“China has a strategy to own the future, to reclaim what it regards as its rightful leading place in the world. And it has a system of government that is geared to achieving just that. It is disciplined, single-minded and dynamic in pursuit of its goal in a way that a democracy cannot be,” Powell said.

 

[chauism]

Interesting that you talk of long run, something that India uses to justify the democratic system & rightfully so. Authoritative one party communist systems no doubt are way more efficient than something like Indian democracy, composing of multiple ethnic & religious groups. Say China overcomes the poverty & has all the necessary infrastructure by 2015. Say India is 15 years behind & achieves the same thing by 2030.

Are 15 years really worth for China for having a very poor record in terms of human rights? When you start comparing the quality of life of citizens in both countries from 2030, see what we have got. Chinese live in a one party authoritative regime, where citizens do not have most of the basic rights like real estate & everything. Indians OTOH, live in an equally developed country, and enjoy the benefits of democracy & human rights.

In short, 15 years is the price which we are paying to get the things done Indian way. And we do believe that it is worth the wait.

So, you just assume the development will stop once China has lift its poor people out of poverty, and for 15 years it will just sit there and do nothing? Yes, in the ideal world India's democracy is the best bet, but as Sir Charles Powell said it is just "wishful thinking" in the real world.

Since we are talking about efficiency here, have you thought about why there is no democracy in the corporate world. The decisions are always made by the CEO and the board of the directors. Can you imagine how messy and chaotic it will be if those important decisions are made through a democratic systems?

 

[third eye]

For the decision making part, in case you don't know even with an one party system, there are still people at the different ends of the spectrum within the party itself at all levels of the organs of the government. The government still have to listen to the mass for their opinions, and this tread is becoming more and more apparent in China. It is just that some of those opinion can be disregarded or ignored more easily if it conflicts with its goal. All the decisions made in China are not by one person or the poliburo alone, they are the final outcome of series debates between professionals who are experts on those issues, and are executed by people who had been selected through meritocracy without the interference of oppositions. There is a reason that people call China's government a group of technocrats.


.
I think Sir Charles Powell outlined this comparison very clearly through this:

Don't want to drag an argument , but the point still remains that with no organized method to audit the decisions & voice dissent..not much can happen.

All the same I am glad China is doing well. We Asians have been at the receiving end for centuries.. abt time we got our act together

 

[PeacefulIndian]

So, you just assume the development will stop once China has lift its poor people out of poverty, and for 15 years it will just sit there and do nothing? Yes, in the ideal world India's democracy is the best bet, but as Sir Charles Powell said it is just "wishful thinking" in the real world.

I am only talking about the part when both China & India will be treated as 'developed' countries, which is what both should concentrate for now. Where did I argue that China will stop developing after 2015 or India will overtake China by 2030? Probably by 2030, both countries would have reached a stage where US or Europe is today & there will be very little scope for further development in terms of infrastructure or poverty. My only argument is that is it really worth for China to go for Authoritative regime, because it is only 15 years ahead of ideal world, democracy like India. Why not sacrifice 15 years & stay in an ideal world?

Since we are talking about efficiency here, have you thought about why there is no democracy in the corporate world. The decisions are always made by the CEO and the board of the directors. Can you imagine how messy and chaotic it will be if those important decisions are made through a democratic systems?

Your comparison has gone too far here. In corporate world, the employees, comparable to citizens, are only contractually bound to the organization. If they do not like the policies, they have the option to quit. How does that relate to a government? What if certain policies of the government are not in favor of the citizens? Do they simply leave the country? And corporate CEOs are also governed by the laws of that country. So most of the times, they do not dare to misuse their authority & commit any fraud. Not the case with rulers of a country.

 

[chauism]

I am only talking about the part when both China & India will be treated as 'developed' countries, which is what both should concentrate for now. Where did I argue that China will stop developing after 2015 or India will overtake China by 2030? Probably by 2030, both countries would have reached a stage where US or Europe is today & there will be very little scope for further development in terms of infrastructure or poverty. My only argument is that is it really worth for China to go for Authoritative regime, because it is only 15 years ahead of ideal world, democracy like India. Why not sacrifice 15 years & stay in an ideal world?

I think that you are too optimistic here, there are still long way for China or India to achieve where US or Europe is today. 2015 or even 2030 is again a wishful thinking. Even when they have reach the development stage of US or Europe today, as we all can see today those two are still face a lot of problems externally and internally. who do you bet on that can solve those problem and new problem that will surface more swiftly and decisively. I think this financial crisis had already show something to us. Again as Sir Charles Powell said, the ideal world you sacrifice for the 15 years for is may be what ought to happen, but it's not going to happen.

Despite those differences, I wish the best luck to Indians for what they set out to achieve in the future. As Thirdeye pointed out, both China and India should regain its rightful place just 2 centuries ago. China and India's combined GDP was almost half of the whole world's GDP in 1820.

Your comparison has gone too far here. In corporate world, the employees, comparable to citizens, are only contractually bound to the organization. If they do not like the policies, they have the option to quit. How does that relate to a government? What if certain policies of the government are not in favor of the citizens? Do they simply leave the country? And corporate CEOs are also governed by the laws of that country. So most of the times, they do not dare to misuse their authority & commit any fraud. Not the case with rulers of a country.

No, actually it is a pretty legit comparison. For citizens, if they don't like the policies, they will become dissents and become a non productive or even counter productive member of the society, it is more or less the same of quitting in the corporate world. As the government just like any wise management, they are trying to attract and keep the most talent people being most productive, they will implement the policies that are in favour of achieving this goal. If you check Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2008, you will find actually the Chinese government is doing a good job and is ranked No.1 in terms of its citizens satisfied with its country's direction and its economy. As for your comment about the law, even thought China is a one party authoritarian government, it is not a dictatorship or tyranny. Its leader are still bounded by constitution and party charters and more importantly common interests of other members of the party which most of the time are same as the interests of its citizens.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

I think that you are too optimistic here, there are still long way for China or India to achieve where US or Europe is today. 2015 or even 2030 is again a wishful thinking. Even when they have reach the development stage of US or Europe today, as we all can see today those two are still face a lot of problems externally and internally. who do you bet on that can solve those problem and new problem that will surface more swiftly and decisively. I think this financial crisis had already show something to us.

No, 2030 is still 21 years away & not too optimistic at all for us to reach where US & Europe are today. May be we will be just a tad behind them in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of other development, we will be right up there.

No, actually it is a pretty legit comparison. For citizens, if they don't like the policies, they will become dissents and become a non productive or even counter productive member of the society, it is more or less the same of quitting in the corporate world. As the government just like any wise management, they are trying to attract and keep the most talent people being most productive, they will implement the policies that are in favour of achieving this goal. If you check Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2008, you will find actually the Chinese government is doing a good job and is ranked No.1 in terms of its citizens satisfied with its country's direction and its economy. As for your comment about the law, even thought China is a one party authoritarian government, it is not a dictatorship or tyranny. Its leader are still bounded by constitution and party charters and more importantly common interests of other members of the party which most of the time are same as the interests of its citizens.

Guess that sums up the difference between our thinkings. You talk about keeping the citizens 'productive'. I talk of keeping them 'happy'. Obvious from your contentions, that you want everyone to be happy with your government's policies. If they are not, its their problem & they should get categorized as 'non productive'. Achieveing national goals with whatever price is not something we prefer. Agreed that it makes us slow. But that slowness is worth it. That is the indian way of doing it.

And yes, you are not a tyranny. But you do not deny the rampant corruption in CPC, do you?

 

[chauism]

No, 2030 is still 21 years away & not too optimistic at all for us to reach where US & Europe are today. May be we will be just a tad behind them in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of other development, we will be right up there.

Look at the difference between China, India and US, Europe in terms of GDP or ever PPP per capita, you will know what I am talking about. That is the true measure of how well individuals are compare to others. Luxembourg's GDP($40,025million) is much much more smaller than China($7,916,429million) and India($3,288,345million), but its per capita ($82,306) is ranked No. 1 in the world. Now as China's $5,963 and India's $2,762, you would not say that China or India is more developed than Luxembourg, would you?
My estimate is by the end of this century, we might catch up with them.

Guess that sums up the difference between our thinkings. You talk about keeping the citizens 'productive'. I talk of keeping them 'happy'. Obvious from your contentions, that you want everyone to be happy with your government's policies. If they are not, its their problem & they should get categorized as 'non productive'. Achieveing national goals with whatever price is not something we prefer. Agreed that it makes us slow. But that slowness is worth it. That is the indian way of doing it.

And yes, you are not a tyranny. But you do not deny the rampant corruption in CPC, do you?

Well, guess what? One of the things to keep people productive is to keep them happy. So the difference is much smaller than you think.

Talking about corruption, India is not doing any better than China either. In the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, China is ranked at 72nd place while India is ranked 85th. I had done a research long time ago for my economy class, if you look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, you will find that corruptions are more correlated with economic and social development of the country rather than its political systems. Authoritarian government can have some clean government as many countries had showed us.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Look at the difference between China, India and US, Europe in terms of GDP or ever PPP per capita, you will know what I am talking about. That is the true measure of how well individuals are compare to others. Luxembourg's GDP($40,025million) is much much more smaller than China($7,916,429million) and India($3,288,345million), but its per capita ($82,306) is ranked No. 1 in the world. Now as China's $5,963 and India's $2,762, you would not say that China or India is more developed than Luxembourg, would you?
My estimate is by the end of this century, we might catch up with them.


Well, guess what? One of the things to keep people productive is to keep them happy. So the difference is much smaller than you think.

Talking about corruption, India is not doing any better than China either. In the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, China is ranked at 72nd place while India is ranked 85th. I had done a research long time ago for my economy class, if you look at the Corruption Perceptions Index, you will find that corruptions are more correlated with economic and social development of the country rather than its political systems. Authoritarian government can have some clean government as many countries had showed us.

The bolded part is just your weak opinion, when realities suggest otherwise.

Human rights in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are missing my core point. I have already asserted that Authoritative one party communist systems no doubt are way more efficient than something like Indian democracy. My arguement is - is it worth it, when it keeps you only 15 years ahead. Because in the process, you end up being a human right abusing place for many of your citizens. Nowhere you addressed this.

With this, let me bow out of this discussion as I have shared nearly everything I had & have nothing more to add. Our difference of opinion stems from the different backgrounds, I guess.

 

[chauism]

The bolded part is just your weak opinion, when realities suggest otherwise.

Human rights in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are missing my core point. I have already asserted that Authoritative one party communist systems no doubt are way more efficient than something like Indian democracy. My arguement is - is it worth it, when it keeps you only 15 years ahead. Because in the process, you end up being a human right abusing place for many of your citizens. Nowhere you addressed this.

With this, let me bow out of this discussion as I have shared nearly everything I had & have nothing more to add. Our difference of opinion stems from the different backgrounds, I guess.

Actually it is not true entirely. I won't deny that those human right abuse exist, but the reality is that those are the minority and the numbers are declining. The movement that fights for those rights called Chinese democracy movement since 1990 underwent a major decline both within China and overseas, and is currently fragmented and not considered by most analysts to be a serious threat to power to the Government of the People's Republic of China. You can wiki on it at will. Since you admit that which one is more efficient, than won't the gap be widening second by second instead of freeze at your benchmark of 15 years?

One thing that the past 30 years of China development has taught people that the more China's social economy improves, so are it human rights, since the people will have more resource to be more educated and mature enough to handle and protect those freedoms. For every freedom there is there comes a responsibility, and sorry to say that I don't think a lot of people both in China and India are mature and responsible to handle those freedom yet as they tender to abuse it as will. At this moment, for both country the most important human rights for the majority of the people should have in both countries are the rights to have food to eat when they are hungry, have clothes to wear when they are cold, have a bed to go to when they want to sleep, basically it is to have the rights to live. If some people's freedom had been crushed during the process of achieving those goals, I say so be it.

Contrary to your belief, I spent most of my life in a so-call democratic society that proclaim itself as the world's freedom fighter. It is just its hypocrisies that hides besides the facade of democracy made me hard to embrace its ideals.