Some facts to clear up regarding India China

[Genesis]

Hoping for some Indian members to give us your thoughts. This isn't a comparison, but what I'm more interested in know is what your opinion is on what I'm about to say.


When comparing China Indian, many go for the argument that India is a work in progress and will be better in the long term, personally I have no problem with that, what I do find puzzling is the reasoning.


The reasons usually given is that India is a democracy, and China is not. India's democracy will get better as people become more educated and richer.


So here lives my question, if we assume this to be true, then the effectiveness of democracy depends on prosperity and living standards. In essence these two things is what makes a democracy a democracy.

Then what China is doing is exactly raising these two things, but at a faster rate, with a different system no less.



So if we are to look at India China in a vacuum, no political systems. We just look at prosperity and living standards, would one make the assumption that China would get the benefits of a "liberal democracy?"

If we are to also assume that the benefits of a "liberal democracy" depends largely on prosperity and living standards.



In other words, let's not use the word democracy, but let's use standards, freedom, justice, high living standards. These are the benefits of said system, electing a leader falls in justice, or fair.




So to sum up, all the benefits I listed above is dependent on economy and education. So why would India be better in the long run if what China is doing is raising the economy and education, which if we are to isolate things, is the thing that drives freedom, justice, living standards, and more?


Again not a comparison, just interested, just puzzles me, at most if what 'm saying is true than we will be equal, wouldn't we in the long term? Since we are both striving for the same thing just in different systems, and when we both reach it we will enjoy the same things?

 

[dray]

Hoping for some Indian members to give us your thoughts. This isn't a comparison, but what I'm more interested in know is what your opinion is on what I'm about to say.


When comparing China Indian, many go for the argument that India is a work in progress and will be better in the long term, personally I have no problem with that, what I do find puzzling is the reasoning.


The reasons usually given is that India is a democracy, and China is not. India's democracy will get better as people become more educated and richer.


So here lives my question, if we assume this to be true, then the effectiveness of democracy depends on prosperity and living standards. In essence these two things is what makes a democracy a democracy.

Then what China is doing is exactly raising these two things, but at a faster rate, with a different system no less.



So if we are to look at India China in a vacuum, no political systems. We just look at prosperity and living standards, would one make the assumption that China would get the benefits of a "liberal democracy?"

If we are to also assume that the benefits of a "liberal democracy" depends largely on prosperity and living standards.



In other words, let's not use the word democracy, but let's use standards, freedom, justice, high living standards. These are the benefits of said system, electing a leader falls in justice, or fair.




So to sum up, all the benefits I listed above is dependent on economy and education. So why would India be better in the long run if what China is doing is raising the economy and education, which if we are to isolate things, is the thing that drives freedom, justice, living standards, and more?


Again not a comparison, just interested, just puzzles me, at most if what 'm saying is true than we will be equal, wouldn't we in the long term? Since we are both striving for the same thing just in different systems, and when we both reach it we will enjoy the same things?

Democracy is more than just high living standards & prosperity, our democracy is not yet perfect, but look at the democracies in the western world, they have prosperity, high living standards, justice, social orders, rule of law, and everything else that any super-efficient authoritarian Govt. can offer, and they also offer something more that a authoritarian system cannot offer.

The freedom of expression without fear, the freedom of choice, the freedom to object, to protest, the freedom to have your own opinion, these are essential human needs, and with the rising prosperity this need for freedom increases. The difference between India & China would be that, India already has a democratic system in place, with time this system will be perfected, rise of education level among common people, and increased exposure to information through media and information technology will help people form an informed opinion, which is necessary for an efficient democracy.

For China, with the rise of the education level, and with more and more information coming in from the outside world, with more and more exposure to the outside world, people will demand more freedom, they will start questioning the Govt., and any oppression to curb it may result into a social unrest and even a civil war, I think eventually China will have to shift to some form of democracy, something that we would have perfected by then.

There is a reason why media & internet are restricted & monitored in China.

One more thing I would like to add is that, in a democracy people are responsible for its success & failures, as people choose their leaders and reject them whenever required, but in a authoritarian system the blame for any failure goes directly to the Govt., and without any established system to remove an erring Govt. people resort to violent means, which we call anarchy or civil war. You can say elections are like safety valves that only a democracy enjoys.

I would like to know one thing from you, an honest reply, if everything else remain constant, would you like to live under a Chinese type of Govt. or a US type of Govt.?

 

[Genesis]

Democracy is more than just high living standards & prosperity, our democracy is not yet perfect, but look at the democracies in the western world, they have prosperity, high living standards, justice, social orders, rule of law, and everything else that any super-efficient authoritarian Govt. can offer, and they also offer something more that a authoritarian system cannot offer.

The freedom of expression without fear, the freedom of choice, the freedom to object, to protest, the freedom to have your own opinion, these are essential human needs, and with the rising prosperity this need for freedom increases. The difference between India & China would be that, India already has a democratic system in place, with time this system will be perfected, rise of education level among common people, and increased exposure to information through media and information technology will help people form an informed opinion, which is necessary for an efficient democracy.

For China, with the rise of the education level, and with more and more information coming in from the outside world, with more and more exposure to the outside world, people will demand more freedom, they will start questioning the Govt., and any oppression to curb it may result into a social unrest and even a civil war, I think eventually China will have to shift to some form of democracy, something that we would have perfected by then.

There is a reason why media & internet are restricted & monitored in China.

I would like to know one thing from you, an honest reply, if everything else remain constant, would you like to live under a Chinese type of Govt. or a US type of Govt.?

For an honest answer? I don't think you get me at all. That was not even close to the question. I guess it's hard to understand.

let me simplify the question

China and India chasing, Freedom, prosperity, justice, prestige and high living standard. IS that fair? Is that what we are all after? I'm including freedom btw.

So what's required for the above, education which gives knowledge which gives the people power, economy which gives the people choices. Are these two what India is also after? You said you system is not perfect, are these two not what India lacks? Choices and knowing what they deserve?

So if in a vacuum both China and India has both, the logical conclusion is that we would both have the same benefits?


You are still stuck on Chinese system, but do you know what the Chinese system was in 1970s? What about now? It changed then why not now? System changes with the times, your conclusion that India system is not perfect means it will change, so why are we not going to change?


I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

 

[dray]

@Edison Chen @chhota bheem @SMStealth I have added a paragraph after you read it, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, just thought to inform you.

 

[halupridol]

democracy gives the people the power to elect there own government,,,,n people can change this govt. if they are not satisfied.....Quality of the government in a democracy directly depends on the quality of people that elected them...

democracy has flaws,,,,one that haunts India is the fact that the majority is not always correct...

this is my opinion,so dont jump the gun.....China has been lucky to have great vissionary leaders....yes they have achieved alot with there system,,,but more often then not such systems fail,,as there is no one to control such govt. like in democracy..

 

[dray]

For an honest answer? I don't think you get me at all. That was not even close to the question. I guess it's hard to understand.

let me simplify the question

China and India chasing, Freedom, prosperity, justice, prestige and high living standard. IS that fair? Is that what we are all after? I'm including freedom btw.

So what's required for the above, education which gives knowledge which gives the people power, economy which gives the people choices. Are these two what India is also after? You said you system is not perfect, are these two not what India lacks? Choices and knowing what they deserve?

So if in a vacuum both China and India has both, the logical conclusion is that we would both have the same benefits?


You are still stuck on Chinese system, but do you know what the Chinese system was in 1970s? What about now? It changed then why not now? System changes with the times, your conclusion that India system is not perfect means it will change, so why are we not going to change?


I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

Yes, we both are aspiring for the same goals, but the methods are different, and both methods have their merits and demerits. An authoritarian Govt. will be efficient in the short run and will perform better, but it will be unstable in the long run. A democratic Govt. will be slower in decision making, a bit less efficient, but sustainable in the long run. And with the rise in education & knowledge level among its stakeholders, the efficiency of a democracy will increase.

Let me quote your quote :
"I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?"

I would say, you are starting with method 1, we are at method 2, we both are trying to reach the same goals, but that goal is not method 3, there is no method 3, we will remain at method 2 only and try to perfect it, but you have to gradually move closure to method 2 because method 1 will be unsustainable in the long run. Now the process for that gradual shift can be peaceful or violent, and that will decide whether the benefits derived from method 1 remain sustainable in the long run or they get wasted.

 

[Genesis]

democracy gives the people the power to elect there own government,,,,n people can change this govt. if they are not satisfied.....Quality of the government in a democracy directly depends on the quality of people that elected them...

democracy has flaws,,,,one that haunts India is the fact that the majority is not always correct...

this is my opinion,so dont jump the gun.....China has been lucky to have great vissionary leaders....yes they have achieved alot with there system,,,but more often then not such systems fail,,as there is no one to control such govt. like in democracy..

let's not even talk systems.

Let's talk with no names

This is what I'm asking in the simplest of forms.

I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

 

[dray]

let's not even talk systems.

Let's talk with no names

This is what I'm asking in the simplest of forms.

I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

Check my answer in previous post.

 

[Chronos]

let's not even talk systems.

Let's talk with no names

This is what I'm asking in the simplest of forms.

I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

First of all, a good post.

I will come back later with a reply

 

[Genesis]

Yes, we both are aspiring for the same goals, but the methods are different, and both methods have their merits and demerits. An authoritarian Govt. will be efficient in the short run and will perform better, but it will be unstable in the long run. A democratic Govt. will be slower in decision making, a bit less efficient, but sustainable in the long run. And with the rise in education & knowledge level among its stakeholders, the efficiency of a democracy will increase.

Let me quote your quote :
"I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?"

I would say, you are starting with method 1, we are at method 2, we both are trying to reach the same goals, but that goal is not method 3, there is no method 3, we will remain at method 2 only and try to perfect it, but you have to gradually move closure to method 2 because method 1 will be unsustainable in the long run. Now the process for that gradual shift can be peaceful or violent, and that will decide whether the benefits derived from method 1 remain sustainable in the long run or they get wasted.

That's the bias talking, you are saying there isn't an alternative way, but in reality the need to elect is not important at all IF the same things can be achieved without election. Would that be fair?

And there is a method 3, I lived in Canada in my teenage years, from what I'm hearing India is not Canada.

So I'm calling the Canadian standard of living to be method 3.


By method I don't mean democracy or authoritarian, just the final result. Let's not look at any systems. India right now has no money and no standard of living.

Having these and the above qualities to me is method 3, and India clearly isn't even close to it.

So again without naming names, method 1 and method 2, both are going for full on freedom, prosperity and so on, if method one can reach there faster is it not the better method?

Just based on the above paragraph without knowing anything about each method, would you not agree method one is better? IF they both go to the same place?

 

[halupridol]

let's not even talk systems.

Let's talk with no names

This is what I'm asking in the simplest of forms.

I'll say a simple example, I'm starting at method 1 you are at method 2, we are both trying to reach method 3, now if method 1 lets us reach method 3 quicker isn't that the better method? If in the end we are both at the same method 3?

bro u r correct...with method 1 ,target will be achieved more quickly then method 2.....
BUT,,u cant ignore the variables here.......
whats the guarantee that leaders in method1 will always be selfless n great....and in case they r not then u can only imagine what that will lead to.....
thats where method 2 has advantage over method 1...
in short method 2 is safe...n quite frankly we dont have any selfless or great leader at the moment...

 

[Genesis]

bro u r correct...with method 1 ,target will be achieved more quickly then method 2.....
BUT,,u cant ignore the variables here.......
whats the guarantee that leaders in method1 will always be selfless n great....and in case they r not then u can only imagine what that will lead to.....
thats where method 2 has advantage over method 1...
in short method 2 is safe...n quite frankly we dont have any selfless or great leader at the moment...

now we are getting somewhere.

you are right method 1 is no guarantee, but as you said neither is method 2. They both guarantee the same thing, in 10 years Chinese leaders will change, in 5 or 10 years Indian leaders will do the same thing, I'm assuming one persona can't run for a third term?

So in essence without election, we are still kicking out the government in 10 years and a new batch will be in. From Xi's talk public opinion does matter to him clearly, and a few of his acts clearly demonstrates this.

This doesn't mean method 1 is better than 2, ooh no. But what it does mean is that method 1 will eventually become method 3.

So having said that what is right in this issue?

a little freedom for a long time then Freedom forever? Or no freedom for a short time than freedom forever?

 

[dray]

That's the bias talking, you are saying there isn't an alternative way, but in reality the need to elect is not important at all IF the same things can be achieved without election. Would that be fair?

And there is a method 3, I lived in Canada in my teenage years, from what I'm hearing India is not Canada.

So I'm calling the Canadian standard of living to be method 3.


By method I don't mean democracy or authoritarian, just the final result. Let's not look at any systems. India right now has no money and no standard of living.

Having these and the above qualities to me is method 3, and India clearly isn't even close to it.

So again without naming names, method 1 and method 2, both are going for full on freedom, prosperity and so on, if method one can reach there faster is it not the better method?

Just based on the above paragraph without knowing anything about each method, would you not agree method one is better? IF they both go to the same place?

First, we are not discussing standard of living here, we are discussing political systems, so Canadian standard of living cannot be method 3, Canadian political system could be, but then again it is nothing but democracy which is more perfected than ours, so it is method 2 only, but much evolved. As I said our system is not perfect yet but with time it will reach that level, but it will be method 2 only.

And for the method 1 that you have, I have already said it will be more efficient in the short run but unsustainable in the long run, I have already explained the reasons also. Method 1 will remain unsustainable as long as you are dealing with human beings.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

A very tricky post @Genesis
On the merit of your post - answering is tough. Choosing either the India model and China model ain't easy. Both has its pros and cons. But let's see the worst case scenarios. In India there are some fair safeguards if you call them than prevents a dynasty man from becoming a despot(even if a failed one). While in China there is scope, I suppose(enlighten me pls if I am wrong).
These safeguards are inherent in any democracy worth its name. For emotionally charged people such as ours, such a system provides stability. Without stability a similar people will face something similar to what you see to our west.

 

[PoKeMon]

@DRAY @Genesis

Democracy is not a tool for fool and uneducated. Isn't it better to make people worthy of having democracy first and then gets democratic, the same way china will become eventually?

Just take an example of your family. The day you become sane and competent, people start taking your opinion in decision making.