India Votes for Stability

I do not understand the this paradox of democracy.

If we look at the democracy at work in white people's countries we will see that the government over there works quite responsibly towards its own local population whereas they work most irresponsibly in international relations. As a matter of fact most of the horrible crimes against humanity have been committed by democractic governments of white people. For example, the genocide of 2 million Iraqis based on every lie and cooked up justification. On the other hand, the democracy over there tends to bring forth public servants (politicians), who must clear a thorough screening process open to public.

On the other hand the democartic governmets in brown people's coutries behave most irresponsibly towards their own people thru, corrution, oppression, lawlessness, murder of merit, abusing human rights and what not. In addition, democarcy in brown people's land ensures that the personm with most corrupt and noteriety gets elected. But these governments behave quite responsibly in international arena - for example, India, china etc.

Could someone help me understand this paradox.

(Pakistani puppet regime is a cooked up set up doctored by a dicatator, its not democratic or legitimate - so its a bad example - there is no govt in Pakistan - except a temporary arrangement)

Urstruly:

There may be something to what hamidm frequently says, that democracy is not our "mizaj ke mutabiq". At least the elected representatives still think of themselves as 'sarkar mai-baap' as long as they are 'gadi-nasheen' and not as servants of those to whom they owe their gadi.

But I have to say that during this and recent elections, the Indian voters have shown a degree of maturity that I at least did not expect from them. They have generally voted for governments that have devoted themselves to development programs, be it the secular Nitish Kumar of Bihar or the BJP guy in Madhya Pradesh. The MMS govt. has been generally quite honest, especially its prime minister and there have been very scandals associated with it.

As for the Western government, what you say is true of the U.S but I am not sure if one can say the same thing about all European governments.

Urstruly:

..China is not a democracy but why do you say that China doesn't act responsibly towards its own people?

Dost-Mittar,

Cosidering that the only guy with clean and honest image and track record is MMS, it is a good judgement by the people. Yes a lot of maturity to put aside regional parochialism by the people of India and not bite the bait by these divisive politicians. MMS desrves to rule for another 5 years. He'll do what no other congressites can do as he showed during the nuclear deal. But I fear the sycophants and the mother in the congress have other things in mind before the term ends.
I am glad though that it is MMS, had it been any other in Congress, specially the Gandhi family, I would not have minded even kabaddi prasad as PM. But what a pleasure it is to see the commies bite the dust...aaahhhhh that was the icing on top.

Adios

"But what a pleasure it is to see the commies bite the dust...aaahhhhh that was the icing on top"

-Cheers!!

They left the state in shambles, though! And the one taking over is not a whole lot of comfort.. let's see, time will tell..

Maharana#4:

I agree wrt the sycophants in Congress but not necessarily Sonia Gandhi. I think that she could have had the gaddi if she wanted and can still do if she wants to.

ext-a-sec#5:

If you are referring to Mamta Banerjee, I fully agree with you. The irony is that the communists in West Bengal have been defeated not because they blocked progress but because they tried to speed it up in haste. Kerala, on the other hand, is following its tradition of alternating between the Left and Congress-Muslim League combine.

Communists have strong roots and organizations in both West Bengal and kerala and I am not willing to write them off yet.

I also think that Prakash Karat lacks the guile and political acumen of his predecessor, Surjit Singh.

Thanks for the piece. I subscribe to a different view of Indian elections. Indian voters do not vote for a meta-narrative - secularism vs communalism, liberal economic polices vs whatever. They vote for their interests in the CONSTITUENCIES. I capitalised the word to indicate that narrow set of interests they vote for. These interests are driven by caste, community, patronage and other links. All major parties field candidates who are able to activate and utilize these links for their benefit. Consider this, Manmohan Singh - the architect of the reforms - ran for the Lok Sabha from South Delhi in 1999...and lost. He should have won - his constitutency was the same people who benefited from the reform - the middle class and the upper class. But - THEY DON"T VOTE!! Its the working class who votes and they did not care a rat's ass for him. They voted for other incentives.

None of this is to say that this is bad. After all, MPs (Member of Parliament) are representatives of the people. If the Left lost in West Bengal, it was not because people were against their opposition to their policies at the center (nuclear etc), it was because they utterly failed in representing the people when they used eminent domain to take farmland for industry. Ironic, considering that they were one of the few parties to actively promote land reform post-Independence.

I consider the Congress coming back to power as a necessary evil - its a case of "andhon mein kana raja"

And I dispute your suggestion that Rahul Gandhi has captured the imagination of the youth. All he has done is captured the imagination of the hyperactive noisy 24 hour media that apes the worst of American television.

God save India from the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Except for Nehru - the rest of them have been more trouble than good. Indira create the Khalistan movement; Sanjay showed his true colours during Emergency (forced vasectomies and slum demolition) and dear Rajiv had big power ambitions. Created the cause of his own death - got the RAW to train LTTE and then sent the Army to fight it. As a Army brat, trust me when I say this - no tears were shed for him.

Re: # 8

Succintly put. BTW the original sinner is Nehru. Far from putting up institutions he was the man who chipped away at them remember it was the Brits who put insitutions in India however unsuited they were to us as a people.

Sanatani

aditya#8:

I am not a fan of the Nehru dynasty. Far from it. Nor do I find Rahul to be too bright or clever. But he does come across as someone who is sincere and has empathy for the common man. Yes, he is where he is because of who he is and, to his credit he openly admits this fact. I think that his family connection has brought him as far as it could, i.e., the leader of the Congress Party. But from now on, he will have to prove his mettle. While the Nehru dynasty owns the Congress Party, it doesn't own India.

I do agree with you that the elections in India are fought at the local level: people in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have voted for the non-congress parties because they are perceived to have provided good governance.

Re: # 3

China is absolutely a democracy. Voting & election is not the only method that can bring forth a representative government.

Chinese democracy starts at commune level which is the smallest unit of the society, like our villages perhaps. Only those who are interested in politics apply for the membership of the chinese communist party. From here the party member ranks above only if he has demonstrated leadership and managerial qualities, until he is inducted into the polit bureau and then through different appointments in polit bureau one becomes the president of China.

The party at commune level is responsible to the people. A member of party may lose its seat if people dispprove of him.

This form of democracy has been putting forth very responsible governments for the past 60 years. These governmemnts have consistently raised the standard of living of over billion people, which is nothing short of a miracle in the annals of mankind. As compared to India, the corruption is almost non existent. Probably that is because the corrupt public servents are dragged to outside of the city and shot in the back of the head. Now this is what I call government of the people, by the people.

Re: # 11
[... As compared to India, the corruption is almost non existent....]

May you should look at the Corruption Index. China is almost at level with India... there were 84000 riots last year in rural areas and commie party oppression - that is offcial count...

China killed 20 milled of their own in name of this revolution or that, barely 40 years ago... 20 years go, they killed thousands of their own children in tiananmen sqaure by running tanks over their backs, no less... What your army did in Lal Mosjid is a picnic in comparison...

Chinese are most cruel a**holes in the planet... ask your brothers in Uighur... LOL

Re: # 9

I have a soft spot for Nehru. He was a deeply flawed man but the only reason we are not like Pakistan is because he was a true democrat.

As for the British and their institutions - I feel that while they have been valuable, they need to change. Take the Army for instance - its a very inefficient colonial army and needs to be modernised. More than spending money it needs to be made leaner and some of its colonial functioning needs to be done away with. The same goes for IAS. It is astonishing how colonial ways of funcitioning have continued - particularly outsde of urban India.

Re: # 10

On Rahul: you may be right or maybe not. I find a political dynasty like the Gandhi's worthy of a banana republic. The other day it made me laugh when the news media was celebrating the "Young Turks". (Scindia, Pilot) Sons of fathers, who were themselves Young Turks and never accomplished anything.

I oscillate : there are days that I celebrate Indian democracy and there are days I despair. All in all: we have a long way to go.

But here is my two-paisa unsolicited prediction: Congress will treat the regional parties with disdain and lose allies. It may last 5 years but the party will over-reach its mandate.

I wish they had come back to power but with other parties keeping it in check. Notice, the most energetic period of change since Nehru has coincided with the era of coalitions.

Re: # 11

Urstruly:

I think that you are confusing democracy with responsive government at the grassroots level. China is a much more open society now than it was five, ten or twenty years ago but it will have to change a lot more before it can be called democratic, and part of its openness is due to the Internet which makes it harder to suppress free expression. It's not just Tibet and Uighur provinces, people opposing for common problems such as corruption have been silenced.And those high officials who get a bullet in the back of the head are sometimes those who run afoul of the powers-that-be.

And, yes, corruption is as rampant in China as it is in India or Pakistan. The difference is that the Chinese corruption is quite efficient; once the appropriate party person has gotten his due, the whole process moves smoothly; in India, on the other hand, one has to bribe several officials and even then the job may not be done. They are worse than the Mafia who do live by certain "principles".

With the clear mandate for his Congress Party, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has huge challenges in front him, including widespread hunger and poverty, lack of basic sanitation facilities, growing rich-poor gap, 32,719 (NCRB)reported murders a year which is the highest of any country in the world, five million cases of crime, including murder, rape and drug offenses, etc. etc. Being a sincere man of intelligence and integrity, I expect him to make a serious effort to confront those challenges. I congratulate him and wish him well. If Mr. Singh succeeds, a prosperous, self-confident India under his leadership can become a positive example in South Asia that India's neighbors can look up to and follow.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide