Some of you might not know that I'm also a member of a cricket forum which has a number of Indian members (cricket being huge in India and all). In their recent election the current party was thrown out in a massive upset and a party led by Sonia Gandhi has taken power. Sonia Gandhi is a former Italian, now naturalised Indian, who married into the Gandhi political dynasty in India 40 years ago. Her mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi, and her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, were both assassinated. Now she is on the verge of becoming India's next Prime Minister.

The prospect of having a foreign-born PM has thrown India into turmoil and there's been a fair bit of emotion around the place. It's under this backdrop that one of my Indian friends has posted the following post which I would like to seek opinions on from you guys here:

Any comments? Most of us here live in democracies where things more or less work. They're not perfect, but they work. Some of us have come from countries that used to be ruled by dictators. What are your thoughts on the above?

Looking forward to some feedback.

A dictator does not end corruption - he merely gives order to the process of theft, bribes and murder and silences complaints about them.

agreed with skunk, democracy works if a system is in place where one cheating politician has good reason to restrain another... that is why it works, because even corrupt politicians dont get away with it if they check each other.

sounds like the person is pretty disillusioned, but it also sounds like they dont know a lick of history.

I agree with you promethius (that's about three times this week...surely not?! :D ) in that the person isn't talking a lot of sense.

I have a few Indian friends at uni and we've had many discussions on this. Vajpayee and his government did do more to end corruption and to modernise the country than the entire Ghandi dynasty before him. However, the problem was that the masses are often left behind and this ultimately was his downfall. The 'India's Shining' campaign was pretty stupid too, because to a lot of people, it...erm wasn't.

I think his criticisms of Sonia are also unjustified. The reason she won the election was precisely because she campaigned for the poor and the dissolusioned. Of course, it remains to be seen how effective this coalition government will actually be in addressing these problems, but at least the poor have now become the centre of attention in the political process. This can only be a good thing, and future governments will forget the poor at their peril following this shock result.

Plus, i don't believe that Indian's 'deserve' democracy less than anyone else. Most that I know are very hard working and honest people and have great hopes for the future of their country. I'm sure that returning to dictatorship would be a massive step backwards.

Intersting post. Democracy in its purest form would be great. But it all depends on leaders in power, laws on books, the rights the poeple have in said freedoms. Compared to other forms of government democracy offers best scenerio for non royal people to get wealthy if the country can support itself. You cant just up and say we got a democracy. You have to work the little things out.There is just as much a chance for greedy corporations to make it hard no matter what the government type is. Geesh do i have something agains corporate power or what hehe?

I think that the "democracy" we are referring to is really a representative republic, peppered with a good deal of socialism (that's the model in most EU states and in the US, at least). I think that model works best. It ain't perfect -- but nothing is.

One big key is transparency. Any government can be just if it is transparent -- if whistle-blowers are protected and the curtain is pulled back periodically to reveal the great Oz.

Democracy also forces elections. Someone who has to get reelected is less likely to abuse power. And, if he's a scoundrel, there is an election by which to oust him (or her).

I can't see any real argument that democracy (i.e., representative republic) is not the least corrupt of the systems.

Oh, and I have known a great many politicians who are concerned with doing what's right for the people. In fact, I have yet to work with one whose very first questions/arguments were not based around what is best for his constituency. Maybe I've just been lucky.

The break down of the system though stems from Political Parties and money.

The cycle of elections reduces the chance that an individual will be corrupt, but the Parties are still together and jockey for Dynasties. There is the increased risk of collective corruption.

The US Constitution was written before Political Parties were formed, and the intention was that Legislative representives would represent the intrests of their constituants. Yes, compromises would need to be made, but at the behest of the constituancy. By not severing the link to money, I feel a great mistake was made that paved the way for Political Parties and career politicians.

Thomas Jefferson would say a Revolution is long overdue.

I don't believe the Constitution was written prior to political parties.

The Whigs and the Federalists were the first "official" political parties in this country and organized by Madison and Hamilton respectively in about the time Jefferson left office. (At least as far as I remember ;) )

The break down of the system though stems from Political Parties and money.

i agree about the money part, but not about the part on parties. the two party system has been a MAJOR strong point for the united states and granted it a strong stability, even in times of war and trial that tore other nations apart.

if you'd like we could discuss the subtle nuances of the two party system, but thats long, boring, and would probably kill the thread.

Thomas Jefferson would say a Revolution is long overdue.

yes, but didnt jefferson say that the blood of patriots should be shed every seven years to wash the lands of tyrrany? yeah, that might be a whee bit excessive, eh, not to mention impossible these days. civilians even with their guns wouldnt stand a chance against todays military.