Is democracy a curse for India?

[LastManstanding]

India, a country of 1.3 billion people, boasts to be the largest democratic set up in the world. Along with this, it also is a country allowing dozens of religions, hundreds of languages, thousands of castes and sects and millions of Gods. Thus, it is also today, the most chaotic and controversial democratic set up in the world.

More than half the members of parliament in Lok Sabha face one or the other criminal charges. There is a huge list of scams and scandals by ministers and petty bureaucrats under almost every government regime and what happens in the end is nothing except discussions.In the face of problems, the democratic set up allows culprits to exploit situations on the basis of religion, caste, language or in recent times coalition weightage.

On the economic front, countries like China and Singapore have done considerably better than India. This is when china moved from social/cultural revolution to economic initiatives in late 80s, almost the same time as India. Projects in India take years and years from planning to execution stage with budgets for them increasing several fold.

In hindsight, do you think would India have been better off with dictatorship?

 

[Slog]

No

India wouldn't have survived till today if it was a dictatorship.

It is not a 'natural' country in the sense that there are hundreds of different groups and ethnicities in the country. And many have hundreds of millions of people so certainly not small groups.

China isn't comparable here when >95% of Chinese are Han Chinese and speak the same language

 

[Zak_Fan]

Any other way would have been a disaster, we cannot compare ourselves to China.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Imagine India under Mayawati the dictator.

Or Mulayam the dictator?

Still feel the same?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Even if a dictator is good, there is no guarantee the successive dictator will be good.

Dictator's default status is BAD.

Good dictators are an anomaly.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

With that being said, India has a long long way to go as a nation.

Regardless of all the developments happening in India, anyone in the corporate sector who has to deal with the government gets disillusioned fast.

Things are REALLY bad.

 

[LastManstanding]

Even if a dictator is good, there is no guarantee the successive dictator will be good.

Dictator's default status is BAD.

Good dictators are an anomaly.

Progress a country can make under one dictator in 5 years can easily surpass the progress made under democratic governmenst in 15-20 years.

Pakistan was ahead of India till 90s despite former being under military rule for many years. Decision making and implementation is quick because you dont have to follow the appeasement policy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I guess this question will only really be answered in the next couple of decades. In theory, democracy should provide the foundation to grow more in the long term, but that is assuming that we use other first world democracies as a yardstick. That also needs to be questioned because a lot of the variables have changed since western countries grew rich, developing countries won't have the same conditions to grow under, e.g, colonial strength, no need to regard environmental issues for heavy industrialisation and so on.

 

[enkidu_]

The problem is that you need a "good" dictator : a Mao Zedong, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, ... isn't gifted every year, and to every people. For instance in Pak we never had an "ideological" dictator, that is one who advocated a long term, transfigurative change of the society by investing into the culture, education, infrastructure, ... just some planned economy with some doped GDP growth rate, which doesn't help on the long run because it doesn't build institutions (the economy becomes like a junkie which it needs "dose" - superficial major State sponsored infrastructure projects, or wars - otherwise it falls down.)

Also, in Pak it favoured regional nationalisms, and I guess with India's more important diversity and population, the results would have been way worse.

But on the long term (from 2050 onwards) India could benefit from some of China's errors, notably the one child policy.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Progress a country can make under one dictator in 5 years can easily surpass the progress made under democratic governmenst in 15-20 years.

Pakistan was ahead of India till 90s despite former being under military rule for many years. Decision making and implementation is quick because you dont have to follow the appeasement policy.

And the same Pakistan is struggling due to the screw ups by one of its dictators.

If you take a religious angle (dunno if you are into that), this is a Kali Yuga bro. The whole concept of dictators/kings work GREAT when the leader is bound by Dharma. It works great when the leader would sacrifice his life than veer into the path of unrighteousness.

Delink Dharma and concepts of dictators and kings are irrelevant in modern world.

The only exception would be countries under massive war and chaos where a dictator (as bad as he may be) who can bring peace to that region is desirable.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Actually this is a great thread.

I believe Democracy is one of the DUMBEST concepts ever.

However all its alternatives are worse (with high risk factors) so it wins by default.

 

[LastManstanding]

No

India wouldn't have survived till today if it was a dictatorship.

It is not a 'natural' country in the sense that there are hundreds of different groups and ethnicities in the country. And many have hundreds of millions of people so certainly not small groups.

China isn't comparable here when >95% of Chinese are Han Chinese and speak the same language

I get what you are saying, but even democracy wasn't tested for such a multicultural and diverse environment before India adopted it. With dictatorship or military rule, you could argue that there wouldn't have been so many riots and more communal harmony in India.

 

[LastManstanding]

Actually this is a great thread.

I believe Democracy is one of the DUMBEST concepts ever.

However all its alternatives are worse (with high risk factors) so it wins by default.

How about following the China model?

 

[LastManstanding]

Actually this is a great thread.

I believe Democracy is one of the DUMBEST concepts ever.

However all its alternatives are worse (with high risk factors) so it wins by default.

This isnt a thread to criticize democracy, but to discuss whether any other model would have worked better in case of India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This isnt a thread to criticize democracy, but to discuss whether any other model would have worked better in case of India.

Are you interested in only what would have worked better up to present history, or what will provide the greater potential going forward? I think that's an important distinction because you might arrive at two different answers.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

This isnt a thread to criticize democracy, but to discuss whether any other model would have worked better in case of India.

I know. But in this thread, pros and cons of everything will be discussed.

How about following the China model?

I heard China is in some major trouble for a while now.

Their currency is heavily regulated by govt...they have way too many people in factories doing the job of few (factory exports, govt subsidizes for them...at some point the bubble could crash)

This is something that economists in here could answer.

 

[gani999]

Progress can be made under a dictator only if he/she brings about discipline in the society. Dictatorship in a country like India will lead to chaos. It is impossible for one dictator to rule a country which has 15 official languages and hundreds of different cultures.

It is pointless to compare India with Pakistan (much smaller) or with China (much more culturally homogenious) with regard to the potential success of a dictatorship.

 

[Saeed]

How about following the China model?

Roman Republic of be a better model. It was huge and ruled over diverse people. Their assembly would elect two Consuls. During crisis one Consul would become dictator for the sake of making quick decisions. But unlike modern dictators they could only serve for limited time.

 

[LastManstanding]

Are you interested in only what would have worked better up to present history, or what will provide the greater potential going forward? I think that's an important distinction because you might arrive at two different answers.

Quite possible, I created this thread with the intention of discussing whether India would have been more developed had it adopted alternatives to democracy?

I believe democracy works only when the literacy rate of country is high and people know what is good for them in long term. For a country like India whose majority of the population was below poverty line and illiterate (still is), I wonder whether it was a sensible move?

 

[Convict]

Roman Republic of be a better model. It was huge and ruled over diverse people. Their assembly would elect two Consuls. During crisis one Consul would become dictator for the sake of making quick decisions. But unlike modern dictators they could only serve for limited time.

The Roman Republic was pretty small and prone to collapsing into civil wars which is why Augustus turned it into an empre

 

[jeetu]

Democracy is still the best of India. I would have preferred American system over British though.

 

[adit_sh]

Imagine India under Mayawati the dictator.

Or Mulayam the dictator?

Still feel the same?

or Chinnamma as Dictator

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

or Chinnamma as Dictator

Got this in Whatsapp a day back.

 

[JaDed]

Not a curse federally but socially yes,think we could had controlled population,better literacy rates,less religious and casteism(dependent on the dictator).

The above is specifically to if incase Netaji or someone like mind would had ruled us for initial 20 years.

Mao or Saddam weren't good dictators but Stalin was,years of communist dictatorship atleast has Russians educated but their society is hardly a model or benchmark due to similar reasons.

Lee Kuan Yew was the best dictator who managed diff ethnicities but again the population was way too small and from the issues I understand now Singaporeans look towards GOV for solving their issues which is unlike South Asia where we hardly expect anything from them.

 

[pillionrider]

I've been seeing this sort of propaganda making its way around social media.

The fools who throw around concepts like dictatorship loosely don't realize how lucky they are to be living in a democracy.

Senseless and blind belief in one leader just because you believe you will be safe cuz you belong to the majority religion is a foolish trend I've been noticing around.

These wannabe supreme leaders don't care about religion. Absolute power is all that matters.

 

[LastManstanding]

I've been seeing this sort of propaganda making its way around social media.

The fools who throw around concepts like dictatorship loosely don't realize how lucky they are to be living in a democracy.

Senseless and blind belief in one leader just because you believe you will be safe cuz you belong to the majority religion is a foolish trend I've been noticing around.

These wannabe supreme leaders don't care about religion. Absolute power is all that matters.

1) Nothing to do with social media, just wanted to have a discussion about what my fellow Indians think about it.

2) Has nothing to do with religion.

3) Indeed dictators care only about power. Point was despite that, would India have been able to witness the same growth or surpass it.

 

[Varun]

Lee Kuan Yew was the best dictator who managed diff ethnicities but again the population was way too small and from the issues I understand now Singaporeans look towards GOV for solving their issues which is unlike South Asia where we hardly expect anything from them.

Hardly a comparison with India. We have a country of over a billion to run, Lee Kuan Yew merely played SimCity.

 

[troodon]

In a country like India, Democracy can slow down the process of development. Nothing gets implemented on time. Even if a Project gets started, it takes 2 decades to finish when it should not have taken more than 2 years.

I don't blame democracy much. The problem is over population. People are every where. You try to dig a 10x10 feet hole anywhere in a city, at least 100 people will be affected and will protest as it will take away their shelter.

 

[jusarrived]

Like I have said before , our society as a whole is corrupt ..the politicians just get more opportunities to abuse the system , the rest complain cos its some one else whos making money .

 

[Indiafan]

Progress a country can make under one dictator in 5 years can easily surpass the progress made under democratic governmenst in 15-20 years.

Pakistan was ahead of India till 90s despite former being under military rule for many years. Decision making and implementation is quick because you dont have to follow the appeasement policy.

Where on earth are you even getting those numbers from? Pakistan was ahead of India because they were ahead during partition. We got some of the poorest people in the world after partition. I really hate when people with little knowledge spout such things. We were home to almost 1/3rd of the world's poor after partition. There is no magic wand which can solve such poverty in just 65 years

Also, I would rather die a poor independent man than a rich slave

 

[CricketCartoons]

Agree with the OP. The poor and illiterate people in India don't know what is good for them. It is we the educated and patriotic middle class who knows better and we should decide their future instead of those village bumpkins.

 

[Slog]

Where on earth are you even getting those numbers from? Pakistan was ahead of India because they were ahead during partition. We got some of the poorest people in the world after partition. I really hate when people with little knowledge spout such things. We were home to almost 1/3rd of the world's poor after partition. There is no magic wand which can solve such poverty in just 65 years

Also, I would rather die a poor independent man than a rich slave

that is just not true

Pak was behind by every major economic measure.

and with negligible infrastructure to boot whereas india inherited quite a bit which gave it a major headtart

 

[Slog]

In a country like India, Democracy can slow down the process of development. Nothing gets implemented on time. Even if a Project gets started, it takes 2 decades to finish when it should not have taken more than 2 years.

I don't blame democracy much. The problem is over population. People are every where. You try to dig a 10x10 feet hole anywhere in a city, at least 100 people will be affected and will protest as it will take away their shelter.

If india hadnt been a democracy it would have broken apart by now

esp in early days (till 60s) there wasnt as much national unity and south had genuine supporters of independence (today its just loonies)

 

[LongHorn]

This is a perennial South Asian fantasy; if only we had a dictator we would have been as advanced as Singapore, it is only democracy that has stopped us fulfilling our potential.

Though not to the extent of India, China has plenty of corruption, just not publicized to the extent it is in India

 

[yasir]

Bigger problem with India and Pakistan(Since we have common history, except last 70 years) is that we never had social, cultural or political revolution, which real makes people lot more self-aware than otherwise... West in 17,18 and 19th centuries went through lot of enlightening period and social, economical revolutions that shape the western civilization...

Where as we are just trying to follow whatever they do, at the same time keeping up our own junk (religion, cast system an d ECO system that goes with it)...We have never really confronted our own traditions, we are silently always nurturing them. We spend so much energy during partition on hatred towards each other that never really understood what freedom is, we never fought any enemy(not as single British solider was killed in 47) except ourselves...

Cultural revolution is important for civilizations, you really need to confront somethings really valueable in past and at times get rid of it, many times that is bloody, but that's what shape the society... I dont remember a bloody revolution in last 5000 years in India, that can tell why some of the oldest cultural norm still exist in India, some people take pride in it, for me that's insane level of laziness