RIP Lee Kwan Yew

[Malthus]

You can critique the Indian state and government for lots of things (and you probably should), but not being a democracy is not one of them.

There have been several peaceful transitions of power between the BJP and Congress.

It's a democracy, but not a true democracy - no Scottish people can vote. 

[Martinus]

For grumbler the only true democracy was the one when he and his buddies could vote in the agora on whether to declare war on Sparta over the Hellenic Hegemony. Everybody else was a copy-cat. 

[Valmy]

For grumbler the only true democracy was the one when he and his buddies could vote in the agora on whether to declare war on Sparta over the Hellenic Hegemony.

Bet he wishes he could have that one back. I feel the same way about voting for Ted Cruz.

True democracy is "rule by the will of the people."  I don't think that this is the case in India, where massive vote-buying and the huge influence that landlords and employers have (especially in local elections) challenges whether the elections represent the will of the people at all, or just the will of the elites.

Ah gotcha.

[Zanza]

True democracy is "rule by the will of the people."  I don't think that this is the case in India, where massive vote-buying and the huge influence that landlords and employers have (especially in local elections) challenges whether the elections represent the will of the people at all, or just the will of the elites.

When I lived in Singapore a couple of years ago, it was a common criticism that the PAP mainly serves the interests of a very small elite around the Lee family. So I am not sure if that is a good criterion to distinguish between how ready India and Singapore are for "real" democracy.

[Barrister]

It's a common enough complaint about American democracy too - that the two parties are dominated by the elites and special interests, and don't represent the true will of the people.

[Siege]

He missed the singularity.

[Valmy]

He missed the singularity.

I know. We can make it Siege!

[Admiral Yi]

It's a common enough complaint about American democracy too - that the two parties are dominated by the elites and special interests, and don't represent the true will of the people.

I imagine that's a complaint in every country in the world, with varying degrees of truth.

[frunk]

I think India and Singapore are coming at democracy from different directions so i'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare them.  Singapore is a strongly centralized authoritarian regime with the trappings of democracy, while India is a decentralized mess where you can get away with quite a lot (including vote buying) because the rules are so rarely enforced.  A vote or group of votes in India at least has the potential to make a difference (see the fact that politicians actually bother to buy them) and it has successfully undergone transitions of power.  Singapore has the greater likelihood to be a better democracy in the future as it is a very small state and so could navigate reforms easier than a large country.

[grumbler]

When I lived in Singapore a couple of years ago, it was a common criticism that the PAP mainly serves the interests of a very small elite around the Lee family. So I am not sure if that is a good criterion to distinguish between how ready India and Singapore are for "real" democracy.

If the argument was "is Singapore more democratic than India," yours would be a valid counter-argument for the two being about the same.  But I don't know of anyone who is actually arguing that Singapore is more democratic.  As far as how close each is to having a political system that is genuinely responsive to the desires of the people, I'd still argue that an effective democracy requires an informed and educated electorate, which pretty much requires a significant middle class, which Singapore has grown and India has not.

If you looked at, say, India and Korea fifty years ago, India would have seemed the one closer to being able to practice effective democracy, and Korea the further.  Yet India seems the one further away today, and Korea has arrived.  What's the difference?  Korea has developed all the other criteria (beside BB's proposed sole one of having a peaceful transition of power) requisite for democracy to be effective.  Singapore of today looks a lot closer to on-the-verge-of-democracy Korea than India does.

[Zanza]

If the argument was "is Singapore more democratic than India," yours would be a valid counter-argument for the two being about the same.  But I don't know of anyone who is actually arguing that Singapore is more democratic.

Good thing neither of us made that argument then. Not sure why you would bring it up though. Seems besides the point.

As far as how close each is to having a political system that is genuinely responsive to the desires of the people, I'd still argue that an effective democracy requires an informed and educated electorate, which pretty much requires a significant middle class, which Singapore has grown and India has not.

I agree. But that's a different criterion to evaluate their readiness for democracy than the one about influence of elites that we discussed before.

If you looked at, say, India and Korea fifty years ago, India would have seemed the one closer to being able to practice effective democracy, and Korea the further.  Yet India seems the one further away today, and Korea has arrived.  What's the difference?  Korea has developed all the other criteria (beside BB's proposed sole one of having a peaceful transition of power) requisite for democracy to be effective.  Singapore of today looks a lot closer to on-the-verge-of-democracy Korea than India does.

I agree again.

[Valmy]

I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond.  Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.

I meant democracy but capitalized it by mistake. I try not to bring in terms and concepts from outside a discussion is I can help it. My apologies.

[grumbler]

I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond.  Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.

I meant democracy but capitalized it by mistake. I try not to bring in terms and concepts from outside a discussion is I can help it. My apologies.

Okay.  I misunderstood.  I thought you were bringing in a new idea.

I think I have explained my position on Indian democracy and why I think Singapore is more likely to develop what i consider true democracy (and what true democracy is) about as well as I can.  Feel free to disagree, but hopefully do so on something stronger than BB's "so long as you have a peaceful transition of power you are a democracy."  Russia's a democracy by that standard.

[Valmy]

No I get where you are coming from and I think basically your ideas are sound. I had just not heard that idea expressed before.

[derspiess]

Okay.  I misunderstood.  I thought you were bringing in a new idea.

Did you really??