What has Democracy solve for India? Lesson for us.

[CardSharp]

Limited democracy maybe a good idea for China, but if you look at the democratic system as a whole, people always vote to chose their local leaders (Indian democratic system). We have mainly two types of election:
(1) State Assembly Level - where block level representatives are chosen.
(2) National Parliamentary Level - where district level representatives are chosen.

They in turn decide who the governing body will be under the leadership of a state level Chief Minister or national level Prime Minister. But at the end of the day the local elected leader is responsible for his constituency and it is his responsibility to work for the development of his area.

Whereas in the Chinese system (as per my understanding), the local elected representatives may supervise the local fund distribution (corruption is still rampant at this level), but do they have a say at the national level where the funds come from? Do you guys see why only eastern China is developing fast, whereas the rest of the country is still grinding? Most poor people in China come from these areas... do they have a right to ask for its fair share?

This is hard to understand.

 

[StingRoy]

This is hard to understand.

Sorry if I didn't make the context clear. My reply was to gpit's comment on Limited Democracy approach for India and China.

Perhaps both India and China should adopt the approach of "limited democracy", as the social soil in both countries is not quite there yet for western democracy.

In fact, looks like China has already made the feel of limited democracy - they limit universal vote to grass-root, and controlled vote in higher level leaders. But definitely, it needs to be more transparent and more open. In contrast, India's democracy is too rampant/wild, and needs to be controlled.

 

[CardSharp]

My reply was to gpit's comment on Limited Democracy approach for India and China.

I don't know why but I think you're both wrong about how electoral processes in China.

 

[StingRoy]

I don't know why but I think you're both wrong about how electoral processes in China.

thats why I put a disclaimer: "as per my understanding". From a few documentaries (BBC I guess) on grass root level democracy in China. Would you mind explaining where my understanding is wrong?

 

[CardSharp]

thats why I put a disclaimer: "as per my understanding". From a few documentaries (BBC I guess) on grass root level democracy in China. Would you mind explaining where my understanding is wrong?

Gpit thinks there is grass roots democracy. Not really, as far as I know they might have tried it out in a couple of local villages. No official with any real responsibility is elected.

You think funds are misappropriated by locally elected official (no such thing) and you think that this somehow is the reason China's eastern coast is more developed. (frankly no, it's more developed because of purely economic reasons)

 

[StingRoy]

Gpit thinks there is grass roots democracy. Not really, as far as I know they might have tried it out in a couple of local villages. No official with any real responsibility is elected.

You think funds are misappropriated by locally elected official (no such thing) and you think that this somehow is the reason China's eastern coast is more developed. (frankly no, it's more developed because of purely economic regions)

It may have been on a limited trial basis then in a few villages.

You got me wrong there on the reason why east coast is more developed. I only meant that these local elected officials were responsible for their local fund allocations and most were corrupt. They showed in the documentary that the local 'elected' officials are usually the local goons or atleast those who have some local power (they showed him having his own security force and an elaborate lifestyle).

The eastern coast is more developed because of the money going there, if similar money is pumped to other areas you would see developments there too... right? But in this case who decides where the money should go? People or the State?

 

[CardSharp]

It may have been on a limited trial basis then in a few villages.

You got me wrong there on the reason why east coast is more developed. I only meant that these local elected officials were responsible for their local fund allocations and most were corrupt. They showed in the documentary that the local 'elected' officials are usually the local goons or atleast those who have some local power (they showed him having his own security force and an elaborate lifestyle).

The eastern coast is more developed because of the money going there, if similar money is pumped to other areas you would see developments there too... right? But in this case who decides where the money should go? People or the State?

sigh... here

Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[StingRoy]

sigh... here

Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India also has several SEZs spread throughout the country. I run my company in one of the SEZs as well.

Thanks for the link, but still not an answer to my question. I wanted to know who decides where the money goes. State or the People. I assume it is the State right?

 

[indushek]

Here's the problem:

Is taking the people's freedom of speech justified in light of drastic reduction in poverty?

Or does widespread poverty justify the right to freedom of speech?

I for one, side with the former:

Will parents worry about freedom of speech when they see their kids grow up handicapped due to malnutrition?

Will people worry about freedom of speech when their husbands die due to a power shortage at his hospital?

Will people care about freedom of speech when they don't even have flushable toilets or running water?

Will people worry about freedom of speech when they can't even afford most popular means (internet) to express themselves?

You guys are bringing China too often into the equation. It's not about China. It's about how all Western countries achieve prosperty through dictatorship and monarchy which then convert into democracies. Democracy did not make the West prosperous. It was authoritarianism.

It is history itself which teaches us that countries achieve prosperty before democracy through their authoritarian times like the early British empire. This is why the West is both prosperous and democratic.

As countries become more prosperous they become more democratic, as China has today. It's history that wealth always enters a society before freedom. However, India was forced to adopt democracy before prosperity. It's not natural and will cause the average Indian physical suffering for the decades to come.

Are u blind the thread was started by a Chinese here and was done to demean us, please keep ur lecture to urself.

 

[indushek]

Better stop being a democracy apologist.

To me, India does not possess the kind of social soil for western democracy to live healthily. The political system and social soil upon where the system grows just doesn’t fit. Your caste system is a stark example. It contradicts to the idea of democracy, but is part of your tradition/culture. Democracy is a tradition in US. It became a tradition in UK.

It takes long long time to change, if you persist your hope and tolerate your potential enemy to surpass your faster and sounder.

It is not the fault of the people of India.

In fact, the people of India never voted for adopting a democracy. It was handful elites of Republic of India founders, such as Gandhi, Nehru, etc, decided to copy the system over, because a) they believe democracy gave UK such a mighty that it conquered India so easily for so long, it must also give India the same power; b) they are all brain-washed by UK. In fact, I read some documents wrote by lords of UK explaining how mentally enslave Indians are more important than physically enslave them.

Have to agree that they are truly wise British! Just look at so many Indians praise UK’s enslaving over India, saying that British did a lot good things on the land of Bharat.

I met an Indian in US. He always says how bad India is and how good UK is that he never spent his vacation in India but UK. He worships UK in such a degree that one time he was caught by UK policeman while on vacation, as he was suspected as a terrorist. Later he was acquitted and he proudly hung the letter of acquittal (some kind of paper) on his office wall, telling us that he was not a terrorist and it was certified by the great British. WTF is that!

Mental slaves are very bad, like in caste system. They don’t have the capability of independent thinking…

The fact is, UK got strong not mainly because they were democratic, but rather because they were authoritarian + looting and pludging others to accumulate treasures. After that, they have the kind of material richness to found and support a healthy democracy.

One must look at the process to get to the results, not just the results only.

Oh so now you want to re write the history do you, are u a yankee or a Chinese i want to ask u, this is not a rhetorical question. My answer depends on both.

Your own Chinese guy starts a thread and here u have an excellent chance to bash up India.

People were uneducated but were not fools, does this mean an uneducated person is a moron. Our forefathers went with the wishes of these so called elites because they believed Democracy is the answer to the widespread inequality poverty etc etc ur favorite bashing topics on India in exponential percentages.

Today those have been brought down but still there is work to do. Just as the Chinese chose communism and have done their work. It is pompous fools like u who try to advise others on what they should have done at so and so time.

 

[below_freezing]

Limited democracy maybe a good idea for China, but if you look at the democratic system as a whole, people always vote to chose their local leaders (Indian democratic system). We have mainly two types of election:
(1) State Assembly Level - where block level representatives are chosen.
(2) National Parliamentary Level - where district level representatives are chosen.

They in turn decide who the governing body will be under the leadership of a state level Chief Minister or national level Prime Minister. But at the end of the day the local elected leader is responsible for his constituency and it is his responsibility to work for the development of his area.

Whereas in the Chinese system (as per my understanding), the local elected representatives may supervise the local fund distribution (corruption is still rampant at this level), but do they have a say at the national level where the funds come from? Do you guys see why only eastern China is developing fast, whereas the rest of the country is still grinding? Most poor people in China come from these areas... do they have a right to ask for its fair share?

the "local elections" are bulls*. the experiment failed. however in my opinion i would like there to be a retry. i'm not against the idea of democracy. i'm against western democracy which is what india and the US have. i'm all for a chinese version of democracy - within the party, no campaigning, and comprehensive oversight to prevent vote buying. western democracies, with campaigning and "candidate promises" backed by corporate and possibly foreign money, are easily manipulated by the US, whose intelligence services are so used to manipulating public opinion in the US, doing the same elsewhere is nothing hard.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

i'm all for a chinese version of democracy - within the party, no campaigning, and comprehensive oversight to prevent vote buying.

Exactly right.

It would be completely wrong to just "copy and paste" a Western-style democracy system into China.

We need our own system, for our own specific needs.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Thanks for the link, but still not an answer to my question. I wanted to know who decides where the money goes. State or the People. I assume it is the State right?

I don't understand the question?

The State always allocates government funds, in every country.

I don't know of any country where the people themselves write up the government budget.

 

[muSALMAN Khan]

Democracy and Economic growth goes hand in hand,when taken into a long term prospective.
What has democracy given India?
It has given its people to stage protests against the centre,if it finds it flawed,the govt. doesn't repel harshly and attacks its citizens.

Our Media conveys the feeling of the people and not the govt.

We don't lock up people who speak against the government,like Lu Xiaobao has been.


Concluding it,we enjoy a life with freedom of speech,demonstration and also keep a check on our government.
and are enjoying high economic growth,though a bit less than China
But ,history is proof,that Dictatorship or a single-party government has always been a cause of destruction of its own country.
I can give you tonnes of examples.
Tell me if you want.
China is enjoying a time ,bit better than India,for sure but India's future with Democracy in hand looks better than the Communist China.

 

[StingRoy]

i'm against western democracy which is what india and the US have.

There are many differences between the Indian democracy and some of the western models of democracy. I can enlist them, but maybe in some other appropriate thread. Every democratic system is tailored to suit its own country, mostly in the way the leadership is chosen after the local representatives are chosen by the people.

i'm all for a chinese version of democracy - within the party, no campaigning, and comprehensive oversight to prevent vote buying. western democracies, with campaigning and "candidate promises" backed by corporate and possibly foreign money, are easily manipulated by the US, whose intelligence services are so used to manipulating public opinion in the US, doing the same elsewhere is nothing hard.

Campaigning is an important part of the democratic process. This gives us an insight to the visions of a particular candidate and their party. Of course some of the promises are in thin air, but apart from absolute apathy from the candidate there are several other reasons behind the non fulfillment of some of the promises... fund allocation being one of them since the money is limited and not everyone is able to fight for their cases at the center.

Again the democracy in the US is different than in India in reference to the corporate involvement and bullying. Indian politics has so far stayed out of corporate bullying. I agree with this part of your comment.