Chapter 26 3. Indian Democracy Syndrome: "Scattered, Soft, Short, Pan, and Pure"

Knowing India, a country with a similar starting point to China, is very beneficial. It can help us understand some typical problems that developing countries are prone to when adopting Western political systems.India has all the characteristics of Western democratic systems, such as multi-party system, parliamentary system, separation of powers, freedom of speech, one person, one vote, but the quality of this system is very low.In fact, Indian democracy has been a democracy with many flaws from the very beginning. For most of the time from independence in 1947 to today, the Indian National Congress Party has been in power, and the Nehru family has almost always dominated the Congress Party. core business.From the time when Nehru was in power to today's Sonia Gandhi "listening behind the curtain", this kind of "family world" that has been consistent for decades reflects the imprint left by Indian culture and history on the Indian democratic system.Not only is the Congress Party like this, but many local parties in India are also family politics that "inherit the father's business". Family politics is very common in India and even in the entire South Asian region, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The quality of Indian democracy can be summed up in five words: "scattered, soft, short, broad, and pure": in fact, these five characteristics are also common problems arising from the adoption of Western democratic models in developing countries. The first is "scattered".There is democracy but no centralization, fierce party disputes, different regions, different religions, different ethnic groups, different sects, and different castes all put forward their own interest demands, and the government is unable to integrate these different interest demands, resulting in loss of goals and a situation where the country is in disarray.The evolution of Indian democracy is mainly influenced by Western democratic discourse, which regards democracy as an end in itself rather than a means to achieve good governance, and democracy is reduced to procedural democracy, and correct procedures themselves can produce justice and good governance.Under the influence of this trend of thought, the focus of Indian politics is to speak out and let go, one person one vote, the opposition party opposes for the sake of opposition, and the ruling party’s policies are difficult to implement. As a result, even such a simple issue as rebuilding slums is difficult. Reaching a social consensus, even if a consensus is reached, is difficult to implement: one political party wants to "eliminate" slums, and the other party finds various reasons to oppose it, or supports it in the abstract and denies it specifically, resulting in more and more slums.This kind of partisanship wastes a lot of resources and seriously damages the overall interests of the Indian people. The aforementioned Indian government completed the renovation of 6,000 ultra-low-level slums in Mumbai within five years, which is an example.Developed countries have already achieved modernization before the implementation of one person one vote, and now enjoy dozens of times more per capita resources than developing countries, and there is also a huge middle class to maintain social stability, so it can withstand this kind of empty consumption today, For a developing country like India, this kind of empty consumption means that the goal of modernization is far away, and the people will suffer in the end.

The second feature is "soft".If China has a "strong government" oriented towards modernization, India has a "soft government" whose goals cannot be concentrated.Economist Myrdal once used the concept of "soft government" in his famous book "The Drama of Asia". He pointed out that even if a South Asian country like India has formulated a detailed economic plan, its ability to implement the plan is very weak , because their governments are "soft governments".For example, as early as the 1950s, India proposed to control the excessively fast-growing population, but it has not been able to effectively implement this policy until today.The Congress Party led by Indira Gandhi once promoted a relatively tough population policy, but the Congress Party quickly lost in the general election.After that, politicians no longer dare to mention population control. Whoever mentions family planning is tantamount to giving up votes. If population growth cannot be controlled, it will be difficult for India to solve the problem of widespread extreme poverty.In contrast, China only started to implement the one-child policy in the late 1970s, and the trend of excessive population growth was quickly brought under control.

Judging from the experience of economic development in post-war developing countries, if there is no neutral and strong government to integrate different interest demands, break through the obstruction of various "vested interests", and determine the priorities of various tasks, it will be difficult Take the pace of modernization.The characteristic of China’s path is that under the condition that population growth is roughly under control, poverty reduction through development is regarded as the last word, and breakthroughs are first made in some areas with focus, which will ultimately drive overall economic and social progress, while the Indian government has not this ability.

This is also the case with the Labor Code of India.No politician dares to touch the Labor Law, and no government dares to shut down inefficient factories. This is one of the main reasons why India attracts far less foreign investment than China.This reminds people of the issue of the rule of law. Generally speaking, the rule of law must be a good thing, but in India's specific environment, this constitutes some kind of burden for India.Because India has many laws that were enacted decades ago and are outdated, but it is very difficult to change them.India's "Labor Law" is a system that includes more than 40 different laws, including the Trade Union Act of 1926 and the Labor Dispute Resolution Act of 1947. It is very difficult for companies to fire workers.Such laws seem to protect the interests of workers, but in fact they hinder investment and reduce employment opportunities.If such a law needs to be amended, the procedure is very complicated. The Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 also exposed the problem of the rule of law in India. According to the Indian Constitution, public security is under the jurisdiction of the state government, and the central government is not allowed to intervene. The elite anti-terrorist forces are also under the jurisdiction of the central government. This complicated relationship is caused by A major reason for the lackluster fight against terrorism.

The third feature is "short".Due to the low quality of India's democratic system, most of the issues considered by the government are short-term, and the greatest consideration is to win votes, while the overall and long-term interests of the Indian people are easily sacrificed.For example, Mumbai is the economic, financial and cultural center of India, but the infrastructure in Mumbai is seriously backward, which has become a bottleneck in India's economic development. Renovating Mumbai's infrastructure requires a lot of money, but Maharasht, where Mumbai is located The government of Rabang, which draws its votes mainly in the rural areas of the state, rather than in Mumbai (which has a population of nearly 100 million, while Mumbai accounts for only one-seventh of the state's population), prefers to spend its limited funds on As a resource to win votes, invest in rural areas with a large number of voters.Like China, proceeding from the overall goal of the country's modernization, make a rational and long-term layout, let the coastal areas with better conditions take the first step, create wealth as soon as possible, and then the central government will pass taxation, counterpart assistance, and industrial gradient transfer And other measures to help backward areas, and then promote the development of the entire country, it is difficult to do in India.It is said that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh once believed that the farmers in Punjab have higher education and cultivation levels than those in Bihar, and that they should give priority to helping the farmers in Punjab to develop, and then help the poorer farmers in Bihar. It is difficult to pass the proposal in India, and the result is that everyone is exhausted and continues their own short-term behavior.

The fourth feature is "pan", which mainly refers to pan-politicization.In Chinese terms, it is difficult to discuss and solve problems in a "practical" manner in India.Take the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 as an example. The two major parties in Indian politics (the Congress Party and the BJP) were unable to fight the enemy together, but quickly fell into party disputes.Indian Muslims are generally the main source of votes for the Congress Party, so the Congress Party always emphasizes that Indian Muslims are moderate Muslims and have nothing to do with terrorism, while the BJP represents the mainstream of Hinduism and often accuses Indian Muslims of Islamic terrorism An accomplice, always criticizing the Congress Party for its ineffectiveness in fighting terrorism.This partisanship has deeply disappointed ordinary Indians.India has suffered a lot of terrorist attacks. In the past, people mostly blamed Pakistan, but the attack in 2008 made more people point the finger at the incompetence of India's own politicians.However, from my field visits and observations, this kind of criticism of politicians is mainly limited to the English-speaking middle class in India, because the terrorist attack directly affected their lives, but these people still account for a small proportion of the Indian population. Very small, they criticize Indian politicians non-stop in various English-language media in India, and debate on TV how to solve the threat of terrorism, how to make Indian officials really stop being confused, but Indian officials do not participate in this kind of debate at all.I think the middle class in India is also very helpless, because their number is small, and there are few people who vote. Even if they vote, they can't affect the political situation, and politicians can still continue to fool the people at the bottom.

Another typical example of pan-politicization is the investigation after the Mumbai train bombing in 2006: Indian security agencies decided to launch an investigation, but the investigation process was quickly pan-politicized.An official of the investigation team complained like this: When you go to a Muslim-inhabited area to investigate, the people here will immediately mobilize and condemn this as a conspiracy against Muslims.You go to investigate the Hindu residential area, and the people there immediately organize and accuse you of conspiring against the Hindus.In fact, the extremists of the two sects are engaged in terrorist activities, but due to the pan-politicization, it is difficult for the government to carry out investigation activities smoothly. As a result, the overall interests of Mumbai and India are sacrificed.

The last feature is "pure", that is, populism prevails.Sunil Khilnani, a well-known Indian scholar, described the evolution of the quality of Indian democracy in his book "India as an Idea". He said: Indian democracy during the Nehru period (1947-1975) was still roughly A kind of upper elite democracy is maintained, and the government can also formulate some relatively long-term plans for the future of the country.However, since the mid-1970s, as the ruling status of the Congress Party has been shaken, the Congress Party has turned more and more to mobilize the lower class people to vote in order to expand the vote source. As a result, the entire democratic system in India has been driven in the direction of populism.In order to get votes, politicians are playing cards of ethnicity, religion, caste, and region, making India's politics increasingly religious, caste, and regionalized. All kinds of contradictions have become more complex and acute, leading to a sharp decline in the government's ability to integrate society.Religious forces are growing and populism is rampant. India today is a divided society, with constant conflicts among various religions, castes, and communities.India is one of the countries with the greatest differences in religion, ethnicity, and language. The Indian political system does not seek commonality, but emphasizes individuality.The result is a serious social disorder, especially the conflict between the Hindu sect and the Muslim sect. The two sides have large-scale conflicts almost every year, and there are many terrorist acts against each other.

The populist politics that began in the mid-1970s also led to a huge increase in the number of voters at the bottom of India.Western democracies assume that everyone is a voter with independent will and can make independent political choices, but this is not the case in India (and similar in other third world countries).With so many illiterate poor, corrupt politicians can manipulate election results with small favors.Many voters do not even know the names of political parties and politicians, so electoral agencies have to use various easily recognizable patterns to represent them. These voters are also the most easily deceived.India's slow progress in literacy is also related to the characteristics of India's democratic system. Many politicians are not enthusiastic about literacy. For them, the more illiterate they are, the easier they are to be manipulated. The 2004 general election is an example. At that time, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party had some achievements in domestic affairs and foreign affairs, but was elected. The turnout rate in that election was only 55%. The Congress Party followed the populist route and mobilized the grassroots , regained power.Voters at the bottom often have little understanding of the overall interests of the country, and their votes are basically controlled by local rich and powerful people, and then they vote for speculative politicians in a daze.

India's economic development has been relatively fast in the past decade or so.Indian scholars’ own explanation is: If China is a modernization model promoted by a strong government, then the Indian model is a model of economic development that bypasses the government as much as possible.Indian scholars joked: We have two fastest-growing industries, one is the telecommunications industry and the other is the beauty pageant industry. Why are these two industries developing so fast?Because the government didn't have regulations in this regard when they rose up, and when the government takes care of them, they will probably be finished.Some industries in India are able to bypass the government, bypass backward infrastructure, and grow and develop in places with weak systems, which shows that the Indian business community has gradually figured out some ways to deal with the shortcomings of India's political system.The government is now also facing tremendous pressure to reform. These forces will further develop India's economy and improve some aspects of its political system. After all, the development process of Western countries is often the same for hundreds of years.But I think it is very difficult to rely on this model to catch up with China and the West. Many private companies in India have great entrepreneurial spirit and development potential, and have achieved good results. This has led some Indian scholars and officials to often talk about "leapfrog" development, hoping to "leapfrog" the manufacturing industry, directly enter the service industry, and create India A modern marvel.Just take a closer look at the faster growing industries in India, such as outsourcing services, software, etc., which serve mainly foreign customers rather than domestic customers.When discussing with Indian scholars, I talked about my opinion very frankly: according to my research, (1) no developing country has been found to be able to achieve modernization through universal suffrage; (2) no developing country has been found Modernization can be realized through "soft government"; (3) There is no large or medium-sized developing country that can skip the manufacturing industry and directly develop the service industry to realize modernization. In early 2008, an Indian scholar and I were invited to give a lecture on the rise of China and India in Brussels. He and I introduced the rise of China and India and their impact on Europe.The Indian professor acknowledged that the strategic dialogue between the EU and China has already reached a considerable depth, because China's economy is much larger than that of India. He said: "India has not yet reached China's level. China is at the Olympic level. India is only the Commonwealth Games. level.” In fact, India is a bit unable to even host the Commonwealth Games.At the time of the writing of this book, it was just before the opening of the Commonwealth Games, but the overpass of the main gymnasium in New Delhi collapsed, the athletes' village was filthy and dirty, and corruption cases abounded.Canada's "National Post" simply replaced the comment with a set of cartoons: in the first cartoon, a badminton player swings a racket, but instead of hitting a shuttlecock, he hits a cockroach; Food; in the third cartoon, a foreign athlete drags his luggage and runs desperately, shouting "Get out of this damn place quickly" while running.The British "Financial Times" also lamented in an article: "A highly anticipated sports event was prepared in a mess by India, which seems to be a good explanation why India's GDP level was on the same starting line as China 40 years ago, but now it is being ignored. China is far behind.” In the final analysis, the democratic system is only a means, and it must ultimately be implemented in the level of national governance.So far, China's national governance level is far better than India's.The rise of China as a "civilized country" and its accompanying influence are beyond the reach of India in terms of breadth, depth and strength. Of course, although India's low-quality democratic system has affected the improvement of people's livelihood and the rise of the country, except for the Indian elite, the poor people at the bottom of India do not seem to mind very much.Such poor living conditions in India’s slums would have led to ten revolutions in China, but there will be no such revolutions in India, where the caste system is deeply rooted, because people at the bottom are more resigned to their fate than rebels.The powerful religious forces make the people at the bottom have a strong sense of fate, they are unwilling to compare, and they do not want to make progress.From another perspective, due to the complexity of the Indian nation, numerous languages, religious fanaticism, and the relative inclusiveness of the democratic system, it has ensured that India can exist as a unified country to this day.If instead of such a democratic system, there is an authoritative system dominated by a certain ethnic group or religion, more confrontation and confrontation may arise, and even lead to the disintegration of the country.From this point of view, India’s political system does have something worthy of recognition, but if India really wants to achieve the modernization and rise that its social elites dream of, then I think India’s political, social, and economic systems must undergo comprehensive and in-depth reforms Otherwise, the rise of India may only be a distant dream.