the forest doesn’t look they way you think it does. Industrialization began in Europe despite of the Monarchy, not because of Monarchy.
Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)
- Thread starter tamsen_ikard
- Start date
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The key difference isn’t Indian democracy vs European monarchy plus elected legislature. the key difference is structure of state allowing effective central policy making vs distributed decision making due to prerogatives of constituent states.
Show me an example of a full-fledged democracy who became an industrialized power.
.
It's always a monarchy or centralized power who becomes industrialized and then becomes a full-fledged democracy.
India is the first and only power to try to a full-fledge democracy and then trying to industrialize.
I'm saying the same thing. Centralized authoritarian powers (early European monarchy or early East Asian dictatorships) can execute centralized policy decision making quicker. See explosion of industrialized growth under German Kaisers or Russian Tsars or British Kings.
Indians can't emulate that type of explosive industrialized growth due to partisanship bickering, brain drain, caste backwardness, and catering to farmer stakeholders in a democracy.
Last edited:
I would argue there has been no such thing as full fledged democracy since the Athens of Perikles. What ails india isn’t a higher degree if partial democracy, but inability to subordinate regional interest due to entrenched and differing prerogatives of regional states.
I think in the next 50 years, a modern version of Tang style Hanfu may return. There is a strong desire to revive this ancient cultural tradition. This probably will be copied in cold countries, as the hanfu is not only designed for aesthetics but for function against the cold. As Chinese people get richer, people will spend money on fashion. Just like as it was in Tang era particularly in Wu Zetian reign, the zenith of cultural renaissance in China.
Last edited:
Also, isn't the nature of a democracy is representing all regions? So by it's very nature, democracy can't suppress a specific regional interest, it has to consider all regions interests. That really pushes Indian industrialization back because you have to care about what a bunch of farmers protesting when doing basic market reform.... and farmers is like majority in many regions.
Like China can just tell the interior provinces to pucker their butts while the coastal ones get richer and lead the way. India can't do that...
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
You are right to point out the importance of centralized state control, but whether or not a state is a democracy or monarchy is irrelevant. For instance, Germany and France are both democracies today yet the lay on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to centralization. The US is unique in that it was a federal republic with a fairly large degree of power being held by the states at the beginning of industrialization, yet it also experienced increased centralization of power during its period of industrialization, leading to the Civil War. India's main issue is not that it is a democracy, but more of that it is composed of many partially autonomous states with conflicting interests that prevent of the formulation of a cohesive national industrial policy.
To be cynical, India is an attractive enough idea for indians so they won’t give it up. but not attractive enough so they will give up local prerogative to further it.
The ideal of democracy is to represent all people and all regions. the nature of democracy is to represent those whose interests are packaged most effectively to get votes. also practically democratic systems tend to have built in break waters designed to prevent certain regional interests from overwhelming other regional systems. that also dilute the ideas of representing all people equally.
Last edited:
I'm saying 6/6 East Asian states (JPN, KOR, TW, HK, SG, CHN) were dictatorships/defacto single-party states, and 3/5 European states (UK, GER, RUS) except FRA/ITA were absolute monarchies during the main phases of their industrialization.
Obviously it's not a clear-cut case, as you have FRA/ITA that some lost absolute monarchy prior to full industrialization, but generally speaking, centralized states produced the bulk of the developed industrialized states today and only later did they become full democracies.
India going against this trend by going full-potato (even beyond FR/ITL) as a full-fledged democracy with all regions jockeying for self-interest... they aren't going to get shit done.