Quite true - and even with democracies like Japan and India, it is quite apparent from their early history that they were kind of autocratic democracies with one large party / leader / family in power for a long period. In India, the Indian National Congress ruled for nearly 5+ decades since independence, and 3 of its Prime Ministers were dynasts (Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) from the same family. Note also that in Japan and South Korea, the US had a vested interest in not allowing democracy to thrive.
back
2 comments
I'm Indian, I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy. 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations.
India is admittedly stable. But it was very much an economic failure. Things only started turning around in the mid-90s.
Let's not forget that before the 1990s, there were the partitions with Pakistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh, Indira Gandhi's seizure of power ...
> 400 million Indians still make less than many sub-saharan African nations.
Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore. Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
> Yes, and they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore.
This doesn't make any sense.
> Also, non-Hindu Indians, including those who are Muslim, are relegated to second-class status (which also must affect their economic opportunity).
This is not true.
> This is not true.
Perhaps you'd like to offer some more depth? There is lots and lots of evidence otherwise. For example, India's program of 'reclaiming' Muslim land for Hindu temples.
> they are more important than all the programmers in Bangalore.
What do you mean by this?
I mean that much of the focus on India is on the "programmers in Bangalore" (which I'm using as a metaphor for the general economic boom). The people who remain in poverty are much more important, a much higher priority, IMHO.
I'm not criticizing the economic boom per se - it provides resources that have allowed huge numbers to escape poverty.
Hot take, I wouldn't consider India as a proper democracy at all the way political parties are setup India is a temporary dictatorship.
> I would seriously question anyone who considers India to be an 'economically successful' democracy.
I am an indian too.
I consider Modi to be a useless, corrupt, duffer of a Prime Minister with no role in India's economic growth. His regime will be known as the "lost decade" of India where it failed to seize the momentum and even damaged India's economic prospects with his idiocy that also pushed a lot of people back to poverty.
However, India's economic development under capable governments are just as visible as the poverty that remains. PM Nehru laid a solid foundation for our country's democracy and created the foundational infrastructure for manufacturing, defence, and scientific research. PM Shastri and Indira Gandhi focused on self-sufficiency in food production and India today is the largest producer of grains, oils, vegetables, milk, livestock etc. etc. that it can feed its 1+ billion population. Indira Gandhi boosted our military and gave extraordinary impetus to our defence, space and nuclear industries. Rajiv Gandhi focused on creating the foundation for India's electronic and IT infrastructure. PM Rao, based on the plans of his predecessors, implemented the policies for private enterprises to thrive. Dr. Manmohan Singh created and implemented one of the largest rights-based welfare scheme in the world to reduce the wealth-gap in India, while fostering economic growth with a focus on services. During his administration, and due to the continuing momentum of the economic growth that he nurtured 270 million indians were lifted out of poverty between 2005-6 and 2015-16 – the most in a global study of 75 countries ( https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-lifted-270-m... ). (I suspect Modi's policy have sent half of them back again to poverty).
It's all easy to say that economic growth happened only from the 90's. That belays an understanding of both state craft and indian history. We chose to focus on building a sustainable and strong nation-state because of our colonial history, at the expense of faster economic growth (and an emphasis on ensuring everyone benefited from the economic growth). On the other hand look at South Korea and Japan. Their economic policies were certainly better than ours at one point. But look at other aspects of their state - they are even today totally dependent on the US to safeguard their borders and thus having to sacrifice some of their sovereignty (on foreign policy) to the US. Korea even has had a history of military rules.
My point is that everything is not as simple as it appears and you have to consider the whole system - due to our democratic system and our huge population, we are operating on whole different level compared to the rest of the world. We have actually done quite well with the handicaps we have ...
India's economic boom came under the democractic governments post-1990. Modi is, arguably, riding that wave.