I know there are two sides to this coin. Thus, to illustrate it, I am going to use a case study. India, the largest democracy in the world is a country of contradictions with many different cultures, languages, faiths and religions. In my opinion, India is a very good example of a nation that displays both sides of the coin.
In terms of economic stability and prosperity, India is gaining a huge ground. It is one of the fastest growing nations in Asia and in the world. It is said to be set to overtake the US as the world superpower, alongside China in about half a century. It has an excellent double-digit growth figures for a few years now. Business enterprises in India are outgrowing and consuming other companies all across the globe to become billion-dollar real MNCs. TATA Group, which includes a steel group, motor company, and a telecommunications company amongst others, recently acquired Jaguar and Landrover from Ford, an US multinational. TATA Motor Co. thus is one of the few companies that has the privilege of making both the cheapest car in the world while also producing some of the most coveted vehicles at the same time. Having said that, I do understand and recognise that India still has to make up on the socio-economic status of the people.
This ties it in nicely with social stability. People now afford sprawling mansions with private swimming pools, a fleet of cars for themselves, and much more. However, the income gap is anything not closing up. The rich get richer while the poor poorer. In many cities, there is an interesting juxtaposition of prime business districts and the shunned slums. High rise flats on one side of the river, straw huts on the other. Just another common sight in the booming cities in India. Low life expectancy, high infant mortality, poor sanitation, and much more can describe the conditions of the lower rungs of this capitalist economy. It is just like the exploding London of the mid-19th century. How can this be stopped? Is the government not doing anything?
It links straight to political instability. On the outside, India has a booming economy, globalization, a huge talent pool, a wide open demographic window, etc.etc. Inside, however, poverty, injustice and corruption run rampant. This is because of political instability. There are many tussles between parties that try to wrestle power from each other, even by force. The Indian Subcontinent, by the nature of its huge landmass, is divided into many states, which are sprawling in themselves. These states are ruled by their own state governments, whose loyalties seldom lie with the central government. It is not very much like the American system, although it was intended to be so.
Some opposition/regional parties have mandates to rule a state, often won illegitimately or through regional grouses. They can and do cause big problems for the central government. An example is the nuclear agreement with the USA. The first stage of the agreement was signed, but when it came to terms and conditions of the next, there was a hung government. Another would be that while one side of the government supported opening up the market for more foreign investment, the other was protectionist. The protectionists feared that the west might exploit them like in the colonial times, and ardently believed that India needed to stand on her own feet. This again incapacitated the government for a long time.
Many a times, politicians take advantage of ignorances/gullibility of the voting populations and get to power to exploit and indulge in self-enrichment. These people would do anything under the sun for the power. In a state election once, the leader of a political party had six corruption charges pending against her—but she still came back with a landslide! Amongst the rural population, it was said that some dared not vote, while some could not be bothered and they lost faith in their ability to change the system.
Hence India, while possessing a booming economy with astronomical growth figures, still has a lot of political and social instability left in it. In countries like India, free democracy simply cannot work because the parties can be rebellious, electorate indifferent, or even both at the same time! A stern hand has to come down to solve growing problems immediately. The huge number of rural, naive people still in the populace makes it unready to make its own decisions. An authoritarian but benevolent government with the right intent has to come along and rectify everything, before returning to democracy.
Therefore I feel that India makes a good study example. It shows how democracy and its capitalist companion ideals can benefit those who participate, and that too much freedom at the same time can prove detrimental. It shows both sides of the coin.
Hence, from the arguments thus far, I feel that a conclusion we can draw would be that whether or not democracy creates stability in a society depends on the way the government carries out its mandate, its ideologies and effectiveness and usefulness to the populace and more than anything else how they perceive and appreciate it. It could be constructive or antagonistic and this will ultimately decide the success of it.
Amrish
No comments:
Post a Comment