Indian democracy loses to Chinese efficiency - by 160 votes

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

All men are created equal except blacks, native indians and women. This only applied to white men when he wrote it.

Took a while to get there, am to some extent still working on it.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Kind of entering to it late but a few things I noticed:

1. It is bad reasoning to say governments are most effective when they are like corporations and have a clear chain of command. First, because almost all CEOs are corrupt and paid far too much. Second, because corporations exist to make a profit and governments exist to either uphold founding principles like a constitution or serve the people (depending how you view things). This means governments can be successful even if they make no profit or take losses year after year. Healthcare for example is almost always a loss. Defense spending too is economically a loss (see broken window fallacy). Besides, the analogy is only partially correct. Governments do have clear chains of command, and Boards of Directors elect CEOs. The civil service of Western governments is not elected and most of the work goes on from bureaucrats, not through elections.

2. You can make very quick "beginner's gains" but economic growth will slow down. The Austrian school scoffs at this and calls this "malthusian economy" to mock the idea, but the empirical evidence is undeniable. Western nations which are fully industrialized and developed have economic growth of single digit percents. When China and India approach full industrialization and potential, their growth may slow down (it may be decades). And if you do not believe this, and think that it is all BS and because Western democracies are ineffective and bloated, at the very least believe it is folly to think that a trend can continue forever based on the past. So saying Chinese or Indian economic growth will continue based on a chart is pure extrapolation.

3. I was hoping for much better arguments from Indians this being a Pakistani forum frequented by Indians. I was hoping they would bring up their modern powerful military, the fact their government is based on the Westminister system and not the American Republican model, and the fact that India is viewed as more favourable to outsource IT than China. And perhaps many other interesting facts about India too. Unfortunately it seems the most intelligent Indians either ignored this thread or the Chinese came out in force. Oh well I guess China "wins"

 

[muse]

I believe we should be talking more on "how". A Autocratic or Democratic system which would result in better efficeincy and satisfaction of the people.

I think or rather I am persuaded that Deng had it right, what does it matter the color of the cat so long as it catches mice.

For entirely too long political elites have treated their political positions as if these positions constituted a religious faith - certainly everywhere people want to have a greater say or role in their own governance but it is also true that the more this role is offered, the less interested large numbers become in the processes, that is to say, once they begin to realize the complications, the complexity of it all, they are less likely to want to be involved -- but they want the option to be involved - even though they are not going to be -- at the end of the day they want matters handled, efficiently, transparently - but dealt with.

China appears to have been exceptionally successful in propagating this general perception - when one flies domestically in China, one is always suprised by the tone of the flight attentendants, upon enquiry, one is led to understand that the Chinese, far from a foreign understanding that the Chinese are very disciplined, or that they are Japanese, if you will, the Chinese are a rowdy bunch - but it works - not suggesting it's not a cesspool of problems like other places, but one is not left with the sense of pending disaster.

For someone like myself and thinking about a place like Pakistan, the Chinese model has a strong appeal - we can't be more sick of horrible governance, utopian economics and the usual gang of criminals (politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary) - not the Chinese don't have the same but it's not as in your face as it is in Pakistan for instance. And to be honest one can tolerate a little theft, now and then, a scandal, but for us, it's just everyday business and that must end.

Reading Zakaria posted by Chauism and was struck by this :

The greatest failure of Western foreign policy since the cold war ended has been a sin of omission. We have not pursued a foreign policy toward the world's newly rising powers that aims to create new and enduring relations with them, integrate them into existing structures of power and lay out new rules of the road to secure peace and prosperity

I think this applies domestically as well, the failure to build on economics as a vital facility of governance itself - at the end of the day an ordinary person wants not to think that disaster was averted today, but rather some small building block of private or personal importance was achieved, hope if you will.

 

[chauism]

Kind of entering to it late but a few things I noticed:

1. It is bad reasoning to say governments are most effective when they are like corporations and have a clear chain of command. First, because almost all CEOs are corrupt and paid far too much. Second, because corporations exist to make a profit and governments exist to either uphold founding principles like a constitution or serve the people (depending how you view things). This means governments can be successful even if they make no profit or take losses year after year. Healthcare for example is almost always a loss. Defense spending too is economically a loss (see broken window fallacy). Besides, the analogy is only partially correct. Governments do have clear chains of command, and Boards of Directors elect CEOs. The civil service of Western governments is not elected and most of the work goes on from bureaucrats, not through elections.

I have to disagree with you here. The analogy here is not about the goal of government and corporate, but it is about the process of decision making and its implementation. The goal for China's government is the development of the country and increase the living standard of its people. That is what give the party the legitimacy or mandate from heaven to rule the country. The interesting thing about the China's political system is that although it is a one party regime, it is not a dictatorship. No one holds the absolute power in China's politics. All decisions still need consensus from all the members from standing committee of politburo. All those members view are more diversified than you think. All the officials including the top ranking ones are still subject to retirement age and term limits with the exception of a few honorary titles.
China according to the Chinese

2. You can make very quick "beginner's gains" but economic growth will slow down. The Austrian school scoffs at this and calls this "malthusian economy" to mock the idea, but the empirical evidence is undeniable. Western nations which are fully industrialized and developed have economic growth of single digit percents. When China and India approach full industrialization and potential, their growth may slow down (it may be decades). And if you do not believe this, and think that it is all BS and because Western democracies are ineffective and bloated, at the very least believe it is folly to think that a trend can continue forever based on the past. So saying Chinese or Indian economic growth will continue based on a chart is pure extrapolation.

Of course all growth will come to a halt due to diminishing returns. The fact is that things that China had accomplished in the past 30 year took much longer for the western nations to do the same in the past. Once China has achieved all its potential then maybe domecratic process will be a luxury that China shall have.

3. I was hoping for much better arguments from Indians this being a Pakistani forum frequented by Indians. I was hoping they would bring up their modern powerful military, the fact their government is based on the Westminister system and not the American Republican model, and the fact that India is viewed as more favourable to outsource IT than China. And perhaps many other interesting facts about India too. Unfortunately it seems the most intelligent Indians either ignored this thread or the Chinese came out in force.

It will be very helpful if India's model could give some insight to China's system and development model, however so far it has not been very convincing for Chinese to see the usefulness of democracy from India's example. Even the Taiwan's democratic system is considered as a joke to most of the Chinese although very entertaining in its process.

Fight Breaks Out in Taiwan's Parliament - CBS News Video

 

[TorontoNoctis]

The analogy here is not about the goal of government and corporate, but it is about the process of decision making and its implementation.

Little understood and little known is that in Western governments most decisions are already made before a single politician is elected. Let's take the standard military procurement. The military is given a type of mission it needs to be prepared for, then drafts up a list of requirements. It gives politicians a list of platforms appropriate to the mission, and the politicians pick from that list. In other words, the decision to purchase this or that kit is made by the military long before the politician who gives the thumbs up comes to power. Much foreign policy too is predetermined. Long before Bush came to power there were documents circulating about the need to invade Iraq, how much a mistake it was for Bush Sr. not to remove Saddam and so on. So your idea that Western governments are "chaotic" due to "democratically electing its decision makers" is only partially true and mostly not. The elected officials can make broad strokes and change policy based on a subset provided by career bureaucrats, but these bureaucrats make up the list of available choices.

The strength of Western forms of government goes far beyond term limits and limits to powers. Western governments have built-in mechanisms to prevent to prevent insanity, both by the government and the nation as a whole. For example, most constitutional monarchies give the monarch reserve powers only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. The monarch can never make policy, so he can never be a dictator. But he can always stop it, if the government goes temporarily insane and enacts insane laws. Western governments have two houses of parliament, to make it harder to pass laws to begin with. And so on and so on.

As for the Chinese system not having a dictator, that has nothing to do with its system and everything to do with Chinese culture. If Russians used the Chinese system of government, or Europeans, it would invariably result in a dictatorship because rather than consensus they believe conflict drives progress. What that means for this India vs China debate is it is fruitless to say China is superior because it has a superior system of government, because the Chinese system of government works for China and only China. The Russians tried consensus and were slaughtered like sheep when Stalin rose. The only thing stopping some Chinese dictator from doing so is Chinese culture and distaste for such brutal methods, not any intrinsic strength of the system itself. The Chinese system works for China and only China.

 

[chauism]

Little understood and little known is that in Western governments most decisions are already made before a single politician is elected. Let's take the standard military procurement. The military is given a type of mission it needs to be prepared for, then drafts up a list of requirements. It gives politicians a list of platforms appropriate to the mission, and the politicians pick from that list. In other words, the decision to purchase this or that kit is made by the military long before the politician who gives the thumbs up comes to power. Much foreign policy too is predetermined. Long before Bush came to power there were documents circulating about the need to invade Iraq, how much a mistake it was for Bush Sr. not to remove Saddam and so on. So your idea that Western governments are "chaotic" due to "democratically electing its decision makers" is only partially true and mostly not. The elected officials can make broad strokes and change policy based on a subset provided by career bureaucrats, but these bureaucrats make up the list of available choices.

The strength of Western forms of government goes far beyond term limits and limits to powers. Western governments have built-in mechanisms to prevent to prevent insanity, both by the government and the nation as a whole. For example, most constitutional monarchies give the monarch reserve powers only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. The monarch can never make policy, so he can never be a dictator. But he can always stop it, if the government goes temporarily insane and enacts insane laws. Western governments have two houses of parliament, to make it harder to pass laws to begin with. And so on and so on.

As for the Chinese system not having a dictator, that has nothing to do with its system and everything to do with Chinese culture. If Russians used the Chinese system of government, or Europeans, it would invariably result in a dictatorship because rather than consensus they believe conflict drives progress. What that means for this India vs China debate is it is fruitless to say China is superior because it has a superior system of government, because the Chinese system of government works for China and only China. The Russians tried consensus and were slaughtered like sheep when Stalin rose. The only thing stopping some Chinese dictator from doing so is Chinese culture and distaste for such brutal methods, not any intrinsic strength of the system itself. The Chinese system works for China and only China.

That is the key indeed. China is not preaching its system of government to anyone else, however the same can not be said about the others. People are constantly bashing China for its own system without understanding what it is like and how it works in China.

China was like Russia before during Mao's era. However when Deng came into power after Mao's death, he brilliantly re-engineered the system to what it is today. He has set a good example for communist cadres who refused to retire at old age by retiring from top positions when he stepped down as Chairman of the Central Military Commission in 1989. He broke earlier conventions of holding offices for life. Washington could have been a King after the revolution, but he set an exemplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power by resigning his commission as commander-in-chief. After he became the POTUS, he only reluctantly agreed to serve a second term of office as president and refused to run for a third although it was his for the taking,. He established the precedent of a maximum of two terms for a president. The governance system of a country is not set by any idealogy but rather than by people who sets examplar and makes precedent. It is the people that makes difference, not the system.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

JAYCEE CREED

in many towns and cities their is an civic organization called the Jaycee's at the been beginning of each meeting they recite this creed.

We believe:

That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;

That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;

That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;

That government should be of laws rather than of men;

That earth s great treasure lies in human personality;

And that service to humanity is the best work of life.

~ C.W. Brownfield

That government should be of laws rather than of men..."


This tenet of the Creed simply means that no one should be above the law, and that the law should be the same for all people, no matter what status they hold in society. The government must be based on constitutional law, accepted and ratified by a majority of the people. The power to change laws and elect governments should remain in the hands of a majority of the people. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, spoke of a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people." This line of the Creed crystallizes what President Lincoln was talking about so many decades ago. Brownfield expressed the meaning this way: "In a free society, the fundamental law is derived from the people. It is they who hold the final authority."

 

[Brotherhood]

JAYCEE CREED

in many towns and cities their is an civic organization called the Jaycee's at the been beginning of each meeting they recite this creed.

We believe:

That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;

That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;

That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;

That government should be of laws rather than of men;

That earth s great treasure lies in human personality;

And that service to humanity is the best work of life.

~ C.W. Brownfield

That government should be of laws rather than of men..."


This tenet of the Creed simply means that no one should be above the law, and that the law should be the same for all people, no matter what status they hold in society. The government must be based on constitutional law, accepted and ratified by a majority of the people. The power to change laws and elect governments should remain in the hands of a majority of the people. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, spoke of a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people." This line of the Creed crystallizes what President Lincoln was talking about so many decades ago. Brownfield expressed the meaning this way: "In a free society, the fundamental law is derived from the people. It is they who hold the final authority."

Shoot, WTF, CAPTAIN?? do you even know what the hell you copied and pasted? how is it related to the topic?
For God sake, if you can't debate with your own words, just leave the thread alone instead of posting pointless trash.
PS, what is majoritys?

 

[chauism]

Shoot, WTF, CAPTAIN?? do you even know what the hell you copied and pasted? how is it related to the topic?
For God sake, if you can't debate with your own words, just leave the thread alone instead of posting pointless trash.
PS, what is majoritys?

If you recall from another Thread.

Sympton:Confusion

 

[CardSharp]

For someone like myself and thinking about a place like Pakistan, the Chinese model has a strong appeal - we can't be more sick of horrible governance, utopian economics and the usual gang of criminals (politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary) - not the Chinese don't have the same but it's not as in your face as it is in Pakistan for instance. And to be honest one can tolerate a little theft, now and then, a scandal, but for us, it's just everyday business and that must end.

I had wanted to ask a Pakistani about this for sometime now. Is there a tribal division in Pakistani politics? I heard there are two politically important tribes in Pakistan and one of them came during the partition and the other was the original tribe of the area.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Chauism

Is this the post you wanted me to re-join? Really?

Wake up, gpit, and Chauism!

Can't you guys see that Always Neutral is an Indian? - the same as another one - so called "Joe Shearer" here. I smelt the heavy doze of curry the second day when I visited here. Or you guys just pretend that you didn't know this?

So it's not useful if you (gpit) assume their ancestors are Brits and come up with an argument against Brits. They would be flattered to rooftops though becuase it is always a great honour for Indians being called as Brits. I know Brits mentality inside out (all my girlfriends were Brits, including the current one). How can I easily tell they are Indians? It is easy for anyone who really lives in UK, interacting with both Brits and Indians here on a daily basis.

Reason 1: see my previous post on what types of ppl usually are here. They are Indians because statistics don't lie. Don't argue with me, go argue with statistics. Although they can call themselves Brits, and are residing in UK, since there is no vetting procedure in this website to verify where they are sitting right now and what is their real surnames, they pretty much can lie through the teeth which is a natural asset for most Indians, while still probably sitting currently at some slums near Mumbay as we speak...

Reason 2: judging from their manners of writing, it is darn hilarious! I have been living in UK for so many years, and I've never seen a single Brit writing "regards" the same way and frenquencies as these 2 fellows do. A local Brit could have cut the craps long times ago. Seriously, even Queen herself won't write "regards" in such a repeative and pretentious manner. So they are not Brits, why Indians then? Indians are famous in Britain for acting pretentiously with a fake exageration in precisely this way so that it even becomes a laughing stock. Just look at following scene (mostly true, with a bit imagination), guys:

--------------------------------------------------------

Main scene : in the middle of a weekend weather forecast in this tiny unknown website ( weatherman: Chauism here)...

Chausim: "hi guys. Tomorrow's weather would be mostly dry with a shower near...

Suddenly one man (Joe "Shearer") raised his hand, interrupting in the middle of nowhere: "Dear Chauism sir, as former CEO, on numerous occations, and a member of the board of several companies, Sir, may I be allowed to point out that companies usually last shorter than countries! Regards!" - then he sat down quietly.

------ WTF? -------

Now after Speeder responded: "what the h*** are you talking about, Joe?", another man (AlwaysNeutral) stood up: "Sir, Joe was talking about companies, sir. regards!"

The weatherman (Chauism) continued ": but Always Neutral (AN) , that is kinda of wierd, isn't it? Because I was talking about the weekend weather here..."

Joe Shearer: "Sir, that's what I am talking about, best regards!"

AN : "That's right, Joe. ragrads ! " ,

and he went on " Dear weatherman Sir, may I announce that Chinese killed 1000 in Tiananmen? Regards!" ...

gpit: hey, that's impossible that much...

AN: So you are agree that it was a massacre? regards to all!

...

---------------------------------------------------



This is like an exact copy of a classic joke on Indians' trademark of faking and pretending! I gonna show it to my girlfriend now, haha, priceless!!


It also reminds me of an equally wierd joke, when I went to my Club last Thursday- it's a Gentlemen Club in London, when I was rushing down the long stairway below, an India member (he also has British surname - adopted. I will not name it for privacy issue) in front of me suddenly stopped, holding the sleeve of a Brit member next to him, chanting: "WOW! Can't you see this wonderful stairway, David? Let's wait a minute and enjoy this brillant moment, Sir!"

I really can't recall if he ended it up with "regards" - most likely


Man! Can't you see? This is what I call a classic curry mentality! Soon you might find out there two gentalmen here are vegetarians, and have a profound respect for cows... I won't even bother to seriously debunk thier amuteur points because it's not worth it.

@ gpit & Chauism

--------------------

In fact, another Indian guy at page 1 or 2 here earned more my respect in comparison to those pretentious fellows, in the sense that he spoke up his mind for right or for wrong, and didn't hide his true identity as an Indian. Although my English is not that great with numerous typos and grammar mistakes, and I can't tell if someone is a yank or not, to tell he's a Brit or not? Comon!

If you guys prefer to keep playing with these two "Englishmen", please go ahead, I do enjoy very much reading how you guys keep knocking them over with your little fingers in the "debate". Haha!

 

[adelansari]

Every Country has to fend for itself, develop its own system and ambitions. I don't buy the thing that "We are natural ally because we follow same system". Only because Power for now rests in America and Europe their system becomes Superior, what if the fortunes were reverse during cold war , gues we would have all been communist. I am not underrmining Democracy, but who decides its the best.
If America and India are a classic example of success of Democracy then China is a prime example of Communist success. SO its hard to choose. Only people can decide what is best for them.

India adopted a system which it deemed fit for itself and so did China and both are effective. You can't always go by the definition.
Chinese system was the best possible option available towards its leader at that point of time and now they can move towards other system. Even I would have been really tempted to follow the Chinese have I been incharge of my country. Its a quick fix solution and then transition to democracy can wait. (Thank God I am not incharge. I am happy what I see is happening in my country)
India should be admired for just the same thing. It has taken a harder road towards success..a road less travelled. Being a democracy with multi culture and multi lingual is not easy and it has been doing well.
Indian system although chaotic has been efficient in every sense. To achieve average growth of 9% for a decade is no joke.

Human rights violation is there every where. Israel is a democracy and blatant human rights violation against Palestinians, American WOT, Indian in Kashmir, Chinese in Uighur, Pakistanis in Balochistan.
Human rights violation is more to do with powerful and weak rather than Democracy and Communist.

 

[chauism]

@Chauism

Is this the post you wanted me to re-join? Really?

I am really sorry for those irresponsible and contemptible comments and smears from some immature members towards you.

You are way much better than this. If you let those comments drive you away from the rest of meaningful discussion, then don't you think that whoever spoke such squalid tones succeeded in their intentions of turning an informative discussion into his personal shooting abuse and pouring loathsome?

After the resurrection of this thread, the discussion has been kept rational and reasonable except one hardliner troll. So please let the past be gone.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Chauism

Dear Friend,

I am sorry to have seemed oversensitive; it is a personality problem which I really must work on. Apologies for the storm in a tea-cup!

With warm regards,

 

[chauism]

@Chauism

Dear Friend,

I am sorry to have seemed oversensitive; it is a personality problem which I really must work on. Apologies for the storm in a tea-cup!

With warm regards,

There is no need for apology from you here. Being sensitive in those issues is part of human nature. If I am Indian myself, I would act not any differently if there is any malevolent baseless insult to India or Indian race let alone a direct personal malevolent libel.

Anyways I am really glad that you are back from your trip and rejoin this forum.