samarkadian
Active member
Contrary to popular mindset of questioning democracy's existance , lets figure out in these interesting onion- in- heart/pocket times about the respect left in the borrowed consititution of the motherland?
Is india a Democracy
- Thread starter rinkusheoran
- Start date
I do not think Ministers in any country consider themselves as servants. Any such expectation from them, especially from Indian Ministers irrespective of any political party, would be only a Utopian thought. As far as the attitude of public sector employees or public servants in France and Singapore is concerned, it is determined not only by the prevailing system of governance but also by the general public attitude. Even before French Revolution of 1789, public servants in France were better equipped with professional decency as compared to the more brutal and less sophisticated constabulary of our indigenous royals. It all depends on the level of consciousness and civic sense of the citizenry as to how law-abiding the citizen are, their culture, literacy, professional training and above all a sense of collective responsibility of people in that particular country. In these two countries mentioned above, it is not the government alone which can claim credit for the professional superiority of their civil servants but the civilized behavior and self-discipline of the people also which got transcended to the coming generations including the public servants. Therefore, before blaming the rulers alone we should think twice as we cannot absolve ourselves of our civic duties. I think we really need an introspection and retrospection to ascertain how civilized and duty-bound we the people are who choose the system of governance as well as the rulers in the present format.
There is not doubt, our democracy has so many loopholes and Shri Sunil Lathwal has rightly observed in one of his posts that ours is a ‘flawed democracy’. But it would be sheer foolishness on our part to assume that these flaws will be absent in another form of government by default. For example, the biggest flaw of our system is corruption. What is the guarantee that this malaise will not persist in other forms of government viz. dictatorship, oligarchy, constitutional monarchy or a government led by military junta. Given the more transparency and accountability in democracy, corruption is more manifest – thanks to the fourth estate (media). So, the need is to improve upon the existing system of governance. It is not that the system is stagnant. Change is taking place every moment but the pace needs to be expedited by the awakened citizens.
More often that not, it is a usual white noise and a reprise of old allegations against each government by the politicians of all hues when they happen to be in opposition, in our raucous democracy. All of them indulge in politico-theatrical rhetoric which is nothing more than a few stereotyped sound bytes. None of them have a quick fix formula but we people fall prey to their professional oratory. We have to bear with the system we have and must give our best in its transformation for the better rather than thinking of something nouvelle which could be even more disastrous.
What corruption has to do with Democracy?
.
What corruption has to do with democracy? What an absurd n' ignorant statement!
A counter question, who should hold accountable for corruption in democracy ?
When government elected by democratic way, starts acting like dictators and don't leave a chance to ruin the country thro' corruption n' bad governance. When situation starts to become bad to worse n' like 'Andhi peese Kutte khaayen', would it still be called idle democracy?
What is democracy in India's context btw?
What corruption has to do with democracy? What an absurd n' ignorant statement!
A counter question, who should hold accountable for corruption in democracy ?
When government elected by democratic way, starts acting like dictators and don't leave a chance to ruin the country thro' corruption n' bad governance. When situation starts to become bad to worse n' like 'Andhi peese Kutte khaayen', would it still be called idle democracy?
What is democracy in India's context btw?
Last edited:
.
Wishful thinking, I wud say!
It's getting bad to worse day by day and you're being optimistic. Sahi hai Bhai! ..
Wishful thinking, I wud say!
It's getting bad to worse day by day and you're being optimistic. Sahi hai Bhai! ..
This should help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2010_green_and_red.png
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Indian democracy is labeled as "flawed democracy". Score: 7.28 out of 10. Given the diversity, vast area and huge population-- I would say India fares quite well.
There is always a scope of improvement but I am optimistic about democracy in India. As literacy rate (and HDI) increases in India, democracy will get only better.
Remember, we are still a young democracy (~63 yrs). [we are still carrying many curses of colonial rule: Illiteracy, huge defense expenditures thanks to volatile neighborhood, etc. I mean, literacy rate in India was ~ 12% in 1947; no matter how sincere government is, it will take time to increase it to 100%.]
Sometimes, we just don't appreciate what we have. An episode of tyrannic rule would have helped the whining individuals to appreciate the democracy, however flawed, that we have.
ravinderjeet
New member
corruption is most dangerus biproduct of democracy.
sunillathwal
New member
Question: Is democracy really responsible for the corruption?
Atish's question is relevant. You can NOT couple corruption with democracy. Communists countries are also corrupt, so are the monarchy and authoritarians!! In fact, least corrupt countries happen to be Democratic.
Do not make stand-alone-statements implying that democracy is somehow responsible for corruption [India is democratic and India is corrupt; hence democracy is a corrupt system!?]; Can you suggest any other system in alternative to democracy which would guarantee a corruption-free India?
Last edited:
sunildabas
New member
People in India will start making fun of such government officials & may even abuse them. like Dr Manmohan Singh is very polite, well mannered etc, he can not shout on the top his voice like adavani so they call him spineless etc. second the indian public is not ready to elect such people. both Dr Manmohan Singh & Shiv Khera (i hope u must have read his book " You can win", all i would like to say he is well educated & very polite) lost elections from south delhi. Khera stood for election as an independent (politician candidate from the South Delhi parliamentary constituency in the 2004 General Elections, but got only 1% of the votes polled. police officers specially in delhi are advised not to behave politely as nobody is going to listen them aur sab shir pe chad gayge coz in delhi everybody knows someone.
As Mr V.P.Singh " As far as the attitude of public sector employees or public servants in France and Singapore is concerned, it is determined not only by the prevailing system of governance but also by the general public attitude. Even before French Revolution of 1789, public servants in France were better equipped with professional decency as compared to the more brutal and less sophisticated constabulary of our indigenous royals. It all depends on the level of consciousness and civic sense of the citizenry as to how law-abiding the citizen are, their culture, literacy, professional training and above all a sense of collective responsibility of people in that particular country. In these two countries mentioned above, it is not the government alone which can claim credit for the professional superiority of their civil servants but the civilized behavior and self-discipline of the people also which got transcended to the coming generations including the public servants. Therefore, before blaming the rulers alone we should think twice as we cannot absolve ourselves of our civic duties. I think we really need an introspection and retrospection to ascertain how civilized and duty-bound we the people are who choose the system of governance as well as the rulers in the present format. " So the public attitude has to change before we expect the govt. officials & ministers to change.
Last edited:
Apparently for some sensible people, this logic makes a lot of sense! Ignorant people cannot understand the situation of invigerating patriotic citizens as they are helpless in democracy to do something for the country. Lets bring some Governing system(Sort of Martial Law or Army Rule) for a magical and dramatic change. Things can be sorted out within months which democracy couldn't in 60 + years.
Last edited:
Question: Is democracy really responsible for the corruption?
Atish's question is relevant. [No its not sunil]
Goodness gracious me !!
My question was not relevant to the thread. I quoted Jakhar's post because he was arguing about corruption in the country because of democracy. I just questioned that argument and that concludes that my question was not relevant to this thread. Lol !!!
Very well Written. The main reason of corruption in the country is the wrong policies and practices. The red tape and bureaucracy were largely responsible for the creeping growth of country. A significant change into Government policies was made back in 1990 by Finance Minister Manmohan Singh (Some people make derogatory comments about him). The Economic reforms in the country has brought us to this level. Yes there is no denial about rampant corruption. It is endemic but we are not alone. It is also endemic in other developing countries like China, philippines, Brazil etc. Now looking at China's communist rule, if some people believe that it can help us in getting rid of corruption. I would say no. Things don't come out because of the suppression of media. Otherwise loud noise of grieved people can be listened all over the the world. This type of Governing system(Communist Rule or some Martial law or other dictator rule) can pinch us more than ever. Somewhere Kapil Dalal explained it very well that how absolute power can turn into absolute corruption. So there is no point in arguing that democracy is responsible for the corruption. It's the policy and Government way of doing business is more responsible. A lot of recent moves like RTI will help to curb the corruption to some level but still there is a need of bringing more and more significant change into Government business policies . More and more transparency is required in Government processes and way of doing business.
Last edited:
sunillathwal
New member
No!! 'Flawed' people are responsible for corruption, NOT the democracy!
The hypothetical martial-law-enforcing-people will be drawn from the same pool (ignorant and irresponsible) and chances are they will be "Flawed" too.
Do I need to remind you the recent Adarash scam and the people involved in it? Hint: It also includes the defense personal whom I assume you are putting all of your hope of martial-law-enforcement!
And then there are talks of Kickbacks supposedly paid to defense personals by weapon-manufacturers !!
Your assumption that new-breed-of-our-martial-law-masters will NOT be corrupt, paraphrasing you "Wishful think I would say.. sahi hai bhaai"
After post number #3, almost all posters (including you) digressed and started bashing democracy (-the system) for CORRUPTION. Ideally, thread should have been closed after Kapil's reply where he nicely explained the representative and direct democracy. End of the discussion.
Have a look at the subsequent posts in this thread. Members argued that India does not have democracy as there is rampant corruption. So- yes, Atish's question (post) is very much relevant and it did not derail the thread (definitely not any further/farther than it already was).
I apologies for not being clear. By stand-alone-statements, I did not imply that it wasn't thought out or insincere. I meant you should also suggest some alternatives and not just criticize the present system.
Reg Martial law: It has been discussed earlier thread also and once again 'wishful thinking'.
Jit,
the question asked was:
"Question: Is democracy really responsible for the corruption?"
And you replied:
"Yes! 'Flawed' Democracy is really responsible for corruption in our country."
You know, that is like someone asking, is food responsible for food poisoning? Or is the heart responsible for heart attack? And the obvious answer is, no, it is contaminated food that causes food poisoning and an unhealthy heart/body that leads to heart attack. And so yes, a flawed democracy can lead to corruption just like any flawed form of governance would.
The important point is that of all systems known to mankind, only democracy has correcting mechanisms for any problems- corruption in this case. Like, we all are sitting here freely discussing the issue, calling this person, that person and the goverment all sorts of names. We know about the issues as media can tell us about them, opposition can create a song & dance on the roads and in the parliament on the same issues. Last time India had dictatorship, the PM's son got a car manufacturing license for himself and other licenses for his cronies, prime real estate and what not. And during the time- there was no debate, no opposition, no outcry- as there couldn't have been any.
Kapil
the question asked was:
"Question: Is democracy really responsible for the corruption?"
And you replied:
"Yes! 'Flawed' Democracy is really responsible for corruption in our country."
You know, that is like someone asking, is food responsible for food poisoning? Or is the heart responsible for heart attack? And the obvious answer is, no, it is contaminated food that causes food poisoning and an unhealthy heart/body that leads to heart attack. And so yes, a flawed democracy can lead to corruption just like any flawed form of governance would.
The important point is that of all systems known to mankind, only democracy has correcting mechanisms for any problems- corruption in this case. Like, we all are sitting here freely discussing the issue, calling this person, that person and the goverment all sorts of names. We know about the issues as media can tell us about them, opposition can create a song & dance on the roads and in the parliament on the same issues. Last time India had dictatorship, the PM's son got a car manufacturing license for himself and other licenses for his cronies, prime real estate and what not. And during the time- there was no debate, no opposition, no outcry- as there couldn't have been any.
Kapil
pradeepiisc
New member
Well, whatever be the kind of democracy (x,y z -- ) we have in India we the people are sole responsible for it. We can’t blame politician alone for everything wrong what is going on, we have to share a bit. Everyone talked about right or wrong in their day to day life but when we get chance to do our bit (may be once in five years) we don’t do it. Majority of the peoples who talk too big don’t come out of their habitat and vote. Well one can argue whom to vote, no option only corrupt one are in race, my vote won’t make any difference and so on. But I wonder I haven’t seen even a single time that polling in any state exceeds 65 % (appro.).
One can say that even if I vote what difference it can make, your one vote may not perform significantly but if polling percentage exceed say 90 percent then definitely probability of winning a better candidates (comparative) increases. If polling percentage is just merely 50 percent which is often the case most of the time then a powerful (economical) candidates can easily influence 10-15 percent of vote using money power and goondaism etc, which will ensure his win, but it is near to impossible to buy more than 50 percent of voter so if percentage of polling increases then it may help for refinement of our elected representatives!!
I believe that for a true democracy to prosperous well is education is one of the key point, although we have to go a long way to improve our effective literacy rate but the slope of graph is increasing which is good thing.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1103118.ece
The governance system in Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a westminster system. It has Buddhism as the biggest practised religion. So the impression of Singapore as a 'bit chinese' is a just a perception, quite opposite to the reality.
Yes, they have some restrictions, like free hold property is not allowed, people are not free to buy private cars and bikes and some very strong punishments (including capital) for crimes like rape, and drugs trafficking. However, all these have proved more beneficial then harmful.
I had been to Singapore, and fortunately for this discussion, it was an election time there. What I saw is contrary to what you have stated. There were people of all ethnicity standing in the election. Unlike India, the election there were without much fun-fare. The elections were agenda based, fought on real issues and policies. You can compare them a bit with the elections in JNU at home. Their campaigns mainly focused on meetings with small gatherings and distribution of pamphlets with agendas written in three languages, Mandarin (kind of chinese), English and Tamil.
In India, corers are spent on advertisements, organising big rallies, etc, to show ones strength and create a "popularity hawa". Agenda based elections are non-existent. You ask any aspiring politician and he will tell you that for winning elections one needs a good muscle and money power, 'agenda gaya ghass charne! agende ko elections ke baad dekha jata hai'.
So I am not sure how the Indian elections are more 'democratic' then Singapore's.
Yes, Indian elections, from the looks of it, may seem democratic just like the auctions of 'daru ke dhekye' and Government bids and real estate auctions. Just like elections, any one looking at the auctions would see them faire as people would seem free to bid. Sitting at the auction place, one can not see the guns pointed at the heads, the money power and bureaucratic processes that lets only a select few to participate.
I do not believe that criminals and corrupts are people's choice. So you tell me that how these people become popular person? The result of the so called 'democratic' process itself proves that, at ground level, elections are not about people's power to choose a candidate but about candidate's power to 'make' people choose him/her.
The problem is that the system is become worse then better. In other words your 'flawed-democracy' is becoming more and more flawed. So bearing with the current system is not a solution. Something from out-side the system has to be brought in. Only then the transformation can happen.
Last edited:
I think I nowhere said it's becoming 'un-democratic'.