Indian democracy loses to Chinese efficiency - by 160 votes

[mohan goyal]

in my opinion, democracy is for educated soceity, who knows their rights and duties and can stand against anything. democarcy has so many advantages and disadvantages. look in ur country, v have democracy but people misuse it in the form of protest and strike. in democarcy people understand their rights only but not their duties.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Ultimately the type of governance best suited for a country is based on its culture and values.

Just taking a page from Hong Kong, Singapore & Taiwan. Chinese societies typically have higher then its fair share of vices (especially gambling) which is quite quickly controlled by organized crime. Hong Kong had its government controlled by the British which made it less susceptible to influence. Singapore had a lot of issues with organized crime but the Prime Minister (Can be considered a benevolent dictator) took steps to eradicate it. Taiwan still has organized crime in its societies which is so entrenched that its already part of its political system.

If China had took on democracy early on, considering the size of the country and its resources I don't believe it would have benefited as much as it would have the bigger problems with organized crime then any of the above had considering the population and land mass. China's current communist/open market system is actually done very well in light of the difficulties faced in the early years.

Good post, Mike.

It's definitely something to think about.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

We will see what happens in the future though. I do not want to see this from happening though, but the trend is really worrying me. However in the age of nowadays, don't you think that it is ridiculous that almost half of the entire population would choose not to believe theory evolution and believe in something fall out of sky?

Each time when those cases were dismissed by the courts including supreme court, they only came after it harder the next time. Somehow should those people just give up after many of those failed attempt and embrace the reality?

I don't think there is a trend. I think these people have always existed. In fact the only trend is for atheists and agonstics which have been steadily growing for decades. It is ridiculous in terms of science, but in terms of culture and technology it isn't. Most people still do relatively mentally unchallenging work, and need no more science than Grade 10. Religion however is used by many people every day to get through difficult situations so it is unsurprising it would have a hold.

If you are asking whether these people will give up, no. If you are asking whether they will be successful the answer is again no. USA has the unusual requirement of 3/4ths ratification of constitutional amendments by all states, and states not only highly value their independence but have been slow to move on even non-partisan amendments.

The greatest success they could possibly have is to radicalize a few states. Anything else would require huge swaths of extremely liberal states like New York and California disappearing, or another civil war (which the radicals would lose).

 

[Joe Shearer]

in my opinion, democracy is for educated soceity, who knows their rights and duties and can stand against anything. democarcy has so many advantages and disadvantages. look in ur country, v have democracy but people misuse it in the form of protest and strike. in democarcy people understand their rights only but not their duties.

Dear Sir,

I disagree completely.

Democracy is not the prerogative of the elite. It is the people's right. And the people we would restrict from participation in democracy are not the ones which demonstrate and which misuse democracy through protests and strikes.

There is more, much, much more to be said, but this is as good a place as any, at which to stop.

Sincerely,

 

[mohan goyal]

Dear Sir,

I disagree completely.

Democracy is not the prerogative of the elite. It is the people's right. And the people we would restrict from participation in democracy are not the ones which demonstrate and which misuse democracy through protests and strikes.

There is more, much, much more to be said, but this is as good a place as any, at which to stop.

Sincerely,

sir, educated soceity doesn't mean that they are elite. a common man is also a educated one. if u see in india, how much v lost during one day strike in india? similarly in japan how they do strike, everybody knows. my point is that in democarcy, uneducated people can easily be misguided by few people. they donot hav the understanding what they are doing and achieving. loss to public property and life is huge. Apart from that, accountability is very limited in ur country because of the same problem (lack of knowledge)

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Dear Sir,

I disagree completely.

Democracy is not the prerogative of the elite. It is the people's right. And the people we would restrict from participation in democracy are not the ones which demonstrate and which misuse democracy through protests and strikes.

There is more, much, much more to be said, but this is as good a place as any, at which to stop.

Sincerely,

Idealistic at best and stupid at worst.

Democracy's strength is protests and strikes. It is perhaps the defining characteristic of democracy. Freedom of Assembly is a fundamental part of democracy such as the Orange Revolution. Not simply an annoyance or inconvenience.

Meanwhile associating educated with elite is a serious problem. If being educated requires being an elite, we should make all non-elites educated, not assume that education is only possible for elites.

 

[chauism]

Idealistic at best and stupid at worst.

Democracy's strength is protests and strikes. It is perhaps the defining characteristic of democracy. Freedom of Assembly is a fundamental part of democracy such as the Orange Revolution. Not simply an annoyance or inconvenience.

Meanwhile associating educated with elite is a serious problem. If being educated requires being an elite, we should make all non-elites educated, not assume that education is only possible for elites.

There is nothing wrong with what Joe has said and also I think you misunderstood what he has said. Right of assembly is important for a democracy or even for a benevolent authoritarian, however the right to misuse and abuse such right or any right is certainly not. Drawing a line defining of what is misuse and abuse is the hard part in a democracy. For example the second amendment from the bill of rights.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

There is nothing wrong with what Joe has said and also I think you misunderstood what he has said. Right of assembly is important for a democracy or even for a benevolent authoritarian, however the right to misuse and abuse such right or any right is certainly not. Drawing a line defining of what is misuse and abuse is the hard part in a democracy. For example the second amendment to the bill of rights.

There's plenty wrong. He was responding to a point that democracy is bad for poorly educated people with the idea that democracy is not just for elites. Implication that education is only for elites.

Not only that but his idea that a worker's strike is abusing democracy is wrong. Methinks his idea is not to restrict strikes only to essential services like police, but to find strikes in general as abuse of democracy or else he would not have made such a bold statement.

The price of democracy is smashed windows and burning cars whenever people get pissed off. People like Joe don't realize this so they rant and rave about people who abuse democracy, when the only true abuse of democracy is tyranny of the majority.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Perhaps this is a slightly skewed version of the aphorism,"Democracies don't go to war with each other." This has happened rarely. It lies behind much of current thinking by Man Mohan Singh and his government, that once democracy gets rooted in Pakistan, there is low likelihood of war with India.

The USA has committed many acts of war against Democratic countries, South America is a good example of this. Take a look at this image, the USA has overthrown many democratically elected governments.

 

[mohan goyal]

There's plenty wrong. He was responding to a point that democracy is bad for poorly educated people with the idea that democracy is not just for elites. Implication that education is only for elites.

Not only that but his idea that a worker's strike is abusing democracy is wrong. Methinks his idea is not to restrict strikes only to essential services like police, but to find strikes in general as abuse of democracy or else he would not have made such a bold statement.

The price of democracy is smashed windows and burning cars whenever people get pissed off. People like Joe don't realize this so they rant and rave about people who abuse democracy, when the only true abuse of democracy is tyranny of the majority.

sir, i was the one who initiated the debate about democracy. u got it absolutely wrong. democracy is absolutely perfect which porvides eveyone the same rights. so there is no question of tyranny by majority. the point was are we (indian) matured enough to have democracy, illiteracy, caste system etc are the causes ?? anyone can make people fool, who are not aware of their rights and duties.

 

[NWO]

I think the economic policy is more important then the political policy. Look at Karl Marx. He believed that Communism should only be put into effect towards the end of the revolution, and that socialism needs to implemented before that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

I disagree completely.

Democracy is not the prerogative of the elite. It is the people's right. And the people we would restrict from participation in democracy are not the ones which demonstrate and which misuse democracy through protests and strikes.

There is more, much, much more to be said, but this is as good a place as any, at which to stop.

Sincerely,

sir, educated soceity doesn't mean that they are elite. a common man is also a educated one. if u see in india, how much v lost during one day strike in india? similarly in japan how they do strike, everybody knows. my point is that in democarcy, uneducated people can easily be misguided by few people. they donot hav the understanding what they are doing and achieving. loss to public property and life is huge. Apart from that, accountability is very limited in ur country because of the same problem (lack of knowledge)

Dear Sir,

In practical terms, until 100% literacy is achieved, it amounts to a restriction of the franchise to say that only the educated should be allowed the vote. In this sense it is an elite that is granted the right to democracy, an elite determined by literacy, not an elite determined by income or asset holdings.

This is objectionable.

First, it was the responsibility of the state, of elected leaders to provide facilities for education, to provide mid-day meals for children, for which scheme MGR suffered such a lot of mockery, to provide compensation for their parents so that children are not forced into bonded labour by the parents, and to provide physical facilities beyond the bare shell buildings that are today's rural schools. So too about the teachers, so ill-paid that they are forced to take up second and third jobs to make ends meet.

If the state fails in its duty, why should the citizen be punished? It was not a voluntary act for millions to fail to be schooled; it is simply that they did not have the opportunity to seek education.

Second, what about the poll performance of those who were not educated and yet allowed to vote? From what I can see, they did rather well, even compared to their educated peers. So what can be the objection?

Third, far from strikes and lockouts being promoted by the uneducated and ignorant, they are called by the educated leaders of trade unions. None of them is illiterate. Your quarrel is with the educated trade-unionist, not with the uneducated urbanite or the villager.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

The USA has committed many acts of war against Democratic countries, South America is a good example of this. Take a look at this image, the USA has overthrown many democratically elected governments.

At one time USA was in a war to the death with communism, they promised to bury us, and they were brutal beyond belief, Stalin murdered 20 million but just takeing their food and letting them starve, I wont get in to what Mao did, but it was not pretty. Both sides were not only willing to die but willing to destroy all life on earth befor they would allow one side to dominate the other. In that war we some times had to compromise on some of our principles.

Just because some one is elected once democratically does not mean its a democracy. Not when the people elected are thugs that then arrange to be in power for life. Iran and Cuba are good examples.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

At one time USA was in a war to the death with communism, they promised to bury us, and they were brutal beyond belief, Stalin murdered 20 million but just takeing their food and letting them starve, I wont get in to what Mao did, but it was not pretty. Both sides were not only willing to die but willing to destroy all life on earth befor they would allow one side to dominate the other. In that war we some times had to compromise on some of our principles.

Just because some one is elected once democratically does not mean its a democracy. Not when the people elected are thugs that then arrange to be in power for life. Iran and Cuba are good examples.

Look at the dates, a good portion of these attacks by the USA happened AFTER the cold war and a good portion of the people who were overthrown were not communists, just politicians who wanted to build up the country so that their people could live better lives.

The USA does whatever is in its best interest without any regard to international law against countries incapable of fighting back. Thats all the USA is, a big bully.

 

[CardSharp]

We have to teach Cpt. America a new tune. Even a simple radio has tuning knobs.