(this is a long one… lol)

Understand and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying statistically. But let me put it across from an insider’s perspective (as in: an Indian national by birth): The current PM of India is a venerable and scholarly man; he has held high posts throughout his splendid career and was educated at Cambridge (if I am not mistaken he has also worked with the World Bank, IMF, planning commission et. al)… The trouble is, he would have never been elected thanks to democracy, because he doesn’t “market” himself very well.

Democratically, again thanks in most part to uneducated (predominantly lower caste Indians) Sonia Gandhi was elected. The wife of an ex-prime minister – who has no experience in the conduct of diplomacy, foreign affairs or economics. She was elected, because she seemed sympathetic towards the cause of lower castes, minorities and so forth. Thankfully, she was responsible enough to give the post to a more deserving individual.

To illustrate my point further: this deserving individual and his cabinet members draft intelligent policies to grow economically. However, the lower houses of the parliament (generally in charge of implementing the policies at a provincial level) are filled with directly appointed representative of the people (where the problem lies). They squabble amongst themselves on issues like caste, religion, rich vs poor etc. instead of focusing on competence. As an example, India could do wonders feeding its poor if the retail and food distribution sector was liberalized (for private and foreign participation). But it’s not happening, because the government would get voted out immediately. As a result 33% of all farm produce in India goes into garbage (I am talking about billions and billions of dollars)… you wonder why? Because millions of mom&pop store owners don’t want retail giants to enter the country and compete with them– as private capital would invest in efficiency, i.e. centralized distribution and “theoretically” reduce prices and offer more options. Democracy is working, because the government is too scared to touch these mom&pop livelihoods, but at the expense of what? National competence

As you suggested, if the upper caste educated Indian had an equal or higher say, I am sure he would choose to hell with the millions of mom&pop store owners and instead invite global giants to compete… but instead we wait for everyone to agree, build consensus and then move forward; all this while China is reaping benefits of some forward thinking minister in the CCP who thought to hell with all the mom&pop store owners, inconsiderate as it might be, its working. Again, I am not suggesting one system is better than the other, instead I am trying to illustrate that these systems are good at different things. And in Singapore’s case, a little bit of both seem to be at work, which is not such a bad idea after all… so cheers to you and your gahmen

i agree that there are more ‘lower-caste’ people than ‘higher’ ones. i agree that democracy is supposed to empower the ‘lower caste’. in fact, in a way that u mentioned, yes.. one-man one-vote has put a ‘lower-caste’ people on the same level as the ‘higher’ ones.

however, i disagree with u that ‘lower-caste’ has been empowered beyond one-man one-vote.
i would suggest to u that in reality, it is the ‘higher caste’ who dominates indian politics, take PM-ship for example.
i think .. the ‘higher caste’ holds the real power in every and each aspect of indian life, be it economy or education, be it healthcare or gahmen-job.

i would also go as far as suggesting that no indian leaders has even been daring enuf to take away any privilliages of ‘higher-caste’ have. what they hv done, if any meaningful, is to put in place “affirmative” policy.

@ deoxin on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 12:46 pm:

With all due respect to your views; I’d like to highlight some flaws in your argument.

Please excuse my language (in reference to using upper caste and lower caste in a disparaging way); coming to the point:

There are more lower caste people in India than higher caste ones, democracy allows these lower caste people to vote for “their own kind” (let me illustrate with a hypothetical example: it’s like suggesting, for instance, that the next PM of Singapore should be racially Indian – it doesn’t matter if he/she is competent or lacks the diplomatic and bureaucratic exposure, I’ll vote for him because I am Indian). In a similar way, most government fields in India (including strategic sections) either vote lower caste people in or have reservations for them (where the bars are pretty high).

Because of this “own kind” mentality, the Indian government ends up appointing less qualified people than the exceptionally smart individuals that are available on the market. This in effect, makes the lower caste people more powerful, even when they aren’t smart enough to decide what is best for the country; in effect, prolong India’s arrival on the economic front.

If anything, the so called “lower caste” people are hurting themselves and abusing an otherwise righteous democratic system. Would also like to add that this is slowly but surely changing; as such, on a long enough timescale, I believe its just randomness and flexibility (democracy) vs. structure and rigidity (autocracy) – I for one can’t make up my mind

also in an undemocratic country like singapore OR china, one has to shut up and just put up with what they get unless if its what they experience is a crime.

other than justice for crimes, what other justice is there in singapore?

@fair and square on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 12:01 pm
yes, i agree totally with u on changes take time.
however, i just to offer u an alternative, controversial view that it IS the democracy that prolong the injustice caste system in india.
imho, as far as i can see, no party in india will ever gather enuf political capital to implement such unpopular measure to abolish the system. the rich r their main campaign donors, key players in their economy, n the master of information; the gurus may not be willing to be on the same level as laymen of other religion (religious riots, remember?).
so, even the laymen can be made understand, will they be willing to launch another struggle when their life already difficult as it is?

Is this not crawling toward democracy of accountability and justice for is citizenry?

Why is PRC moving in the DIRECTION of democracy in alignment of its moving in the parallel direction of capitalism??

They are like hands in the glove.

Let me illustrate: in modern day Singapore, If your parent’s household income is 3 mil per annum, the opportunities you would have in life would be “very different” from someone born to a family with a household income of 30k per annum, you would go to an ivy league school and get opportunities that you don’t necessarily earn, while your counterpart would slug it out at 8 bucks an hour for a substantial part of his/her life. In our pursuit for equality, we have reached a position where we refuse to accept or acknowledge inequality.

In essence, the ancient Indian “caste” system recognized this pattern and acknowledged it. However, modern societies still continue to ignore this pattern as it sounds politically incorrect.

On the other hand, Indian democracy (including all its flaws) opens up an awe-inspiring amount of power to the person who was born in a 30k per annum situation! As he decides if he wants a pro poor “socialist” government or a pro business “capitalist” government (both in essence are trying to help him, but the key is, he decides).

On another tangent: Winston Churchill once said: the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

My real point is – this is what education does, which is what India needs to focus on

Yet another strawman argument. You quoted India as an example of why democracy does not work, yet conveniently forgot about the other countries (some 50+ over) where democracy does works for them.