7 ms·

Salim Ismail – Our democracy is about to collapse

32 points by rmchugh 10y ago

kalekold 10y ago
I turned off after he implied Brexit was a bad thing and that people were just frightened into voting for it. It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do. If politicians don't represent the will of the people, a revolution will ensue.
- capote 10y ago
  > It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. Actually, the majority vote is frequently one or both of these things. Whether or not this applies here.
- uola 10y ago
  Investors speaking without the chance of rebuttal from people who have significant experience in the subject is pretty useless. Another thing that stand out is presenting Switzerland as a role model, which has been far from problem free. Universal suffrage wasn't fully implemented until 1991 (1971 on a federal level), it's the most expensive country in Europe, have had huge drug problems as a result of public policy and want to stop immigration similarly to the UK.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thrw899 10y ago
    Women would have to serve in military in order to get right to vote. Eventually they made exception. Equal Rights Amendment did not passed for the same reason. Women would be subjected to draft.
  - bhaak 10y ago
    In how many other countries did the universal suffrage get granted by a democratic vote? Calling that a failure of democracy just because it took longer seems silly to me.
  - piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
    > has been far from problem free > and want to stop immigration similarly to the UK I'd say that it's rather an advantage of Switzerland model, than a problem.
    - uola 10y ago
      That didn't seem to be the sentiment of the speaker though, which is why I mention it.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Gosh Switzerland sounds like a terrible place. I have always wanted to go there for a vacation, but now I'm not so sure, is it even safe to visit?
    - uola 10y ago
      I assume you're being sarcastic, but while I like Switzerland it is a peculiar place. It's not at all uncommon that visitors experience culture shock, thinking people are unfriendly and not realizing how expensive things are. I wouldn't schedule a longer family vacation without doing some research, especially if you have family members that aren't flexible.
- hobs 10y ago
  >It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. Excuse me? Why is that nonsense? Your argument is basically "This man made an unsubstantiated argument, so I am going to do the same thing!"
  - techthroway443 10y ago
    I thought people voted for Brexit because they wanted more autonomy and didn't like the free flow of immigrants, but I guess saying people were "scared shitless" does indeed make more sense.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - audunw 10y ago
      Well, the point is that Brexit does not guarentee that either of those things will be fixed. "Scared shitless" might be hyperbole. But it's certainly very fair to say that Brexit was sold on false premises. A lot of the arguments from the Brexit campaign were straight out massive lies.
- flexie 10y ago
  It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years. Middle-aged and older people are not going to study abroad, they don't need an interesting job in a multinational organisation 20 years from now, they cannot imagine a single digital market or a single financial market anyways, and they don't care about it, they don't care about reserving the option of working abroad one day somewhere in Europe and they are not going to befriend or marry any foreigners anyway. Had you asked the old people in the 1960s whether rock music should be banned, the likely answer would have been "yes". The median age has increased from 34 in 1974 to 40 in 2015 and older people now constitute a majority. That's not a big issue when you let a parliament decide on political issues, since politicians would usually trade favors. But referendums are a crude form of democracy with no room for political bargaining. Matters are presented as either A or B and the winner takes it all.
  - lazyjones 10y ago
    > It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years. How is that an explanation? If these surveys are actually true, the reason the vote ended as it did is because younger people didn't care enough to actually vote. The claim that older voters don't care about the future because it doesn't affect them personally as much is just derogatory. You could say that they have invested decades of their lives in the country and care about it more, they also knew life (in the EEC) before the EU was formed in 1993. Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to.
    - misnome 10y ago
      > Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to. Changes with definite, visible negative consequences Versus not having any clue about changes that can not even be guessed at, advertised on explicitly untrue premises? Younger people have grown up less isolated in a much more connected world, where other ways of thinking have not been so scary and alien. This isn't 1993, and despite the hints from the campaigning, having voted to leave won't make it 1993 again.
- pjc50 10y ago
  In the short term, it has already been a bad thing, despite no actual change in our legal status yet. FTSE down, £/$ down a long way, Chancellor discarding the public finance targets as unmeetable. The next Budget is going to be horrendous, which is why nobody's particularly keen to jump on the job of PM. The alleged (and of course uncosted) benefits are several years away at a minimum.
  - lazyjones 10y ago
    > FTSE down, £/$ down a long way, FTSE is up, not down. It's pretty much at its highest point yet in 2016. Tourism is booming and the economy will benefit greatly from the GBP drop.
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      UK is running a massive trade deficit. I'm pretty sure falling GBP does not excerbate the problem in any way, shape or form /s
      - pjc50 10y ago
        The current account deficit used to be the stuff of news bulletins. It's barely mentioned these days as everyone assumes we can continue to pay for imports with foreign capital investment. This used to be a benefit of our "stability premium", as it is for Switzerland; we'll have to see if this continues.
      - lazyjones 10y ago
        Trade deficit and falling pound means: importing goods becomes more expensive, exporting and producing for the local market becomes easier.
  - misja111 10y ago
    > FTSE down The FTSE is at an all year high right now, outperforming European indices after the Brexit. However, the main reason for that is compensation for the GBP drop, because most FTSE funds are internationals so the value of their foreign assets went up against the GBP.
- misnome 10y ago
  > It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do. Yes, and this disenfranchisement led to disingenuous politicians and media scaring people into thinking they were under attack from "The others". Almost every single argument betrays this underlying way of thinking. If immigration is so bad, then why did the places with the most immigration vote the least to leave? I have yet to hear a good example of a 'Bad' EU law, or one without good reasons. The commission is clearly chosen by elected politicians; and is demonstrably no less democratic than the choice of prime or government ministers. The new leader of this country will not have been elected so - which is our system, which is fine - but don't pretend it is any other. (interestingly, since WW2 there have now been as many mid-term changes as there have been elected prime ministers). We in theory elect politicians effectively as 'Experts' who can take the time to make the right decisions with the knowledge that we don't have time or the interest to accumulate. But we've reached the place where emotional appeals are so easy and effective to spread quickly that as soon as someone starts acting in the long term interest (which is often not so good short term, and short term is much easier to defend) they are swept aside.
  - lmz 10y ago
    Remember this from 2009: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-l... > I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. > Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. > This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants. The politicians knew what easing immigration restrictions would be unpopular, but they did it anyway.
  - formula1 10y ago
    Im not sure what you mean by people with long term interest are swept aside by emotional appeal. If you implying that the person who markets themself better is more powerful, then yes that is true. Solid marketing in a career ment to sell a person to the masses will usually win. As for long term interest, that truly is up for debate. Some people envision a post scarcity world and want to live it out today. Some believe all groups can live harmoniously togethor. Some people think about progress at any cost. Others relate good behaviour and bad behaviour to demographics. All of these have extremes, upsides and downsides. All have the future and present in mind. Which one is right? Nobody has come up with a discrete plan or vision. We are all so early in evolution, monkeys with really really fancy toys
- johndunne 10y ago
  I think he mentioned Brexit because it's an example of too many voices getting lost/ignored in the 'noise' of democracy i.e a democracy needs to represent many complex issues. In the case of Brexit, many votes were cast, each vote complex in it's own right, on a binary referendum that has far reaching consequences. My take from what he's saying is that the world moves far to fast, and is far to complex for the current democratic model we hold dear to function properly for all.
- abpavel 10y ago
  UK Poll results: 1. British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU: [Agree: 52%, Disagree: 26%] 2. All citizens of EU should have the right to live and work in the UK: [Agree: 36%, Disagree: 46%] I don't think anyone wants to restrict freedom of movement. It's just about abuse of gullible nature of "us vs. them", creating a virtual enemy which you can easily blame for all your problems. The referendum did not represent will of people, it represented the mood - the negative mood towards their own government and way of life, which does not have anything to do with any migrants. I.e.: IBM creates AI replacing 30K internal employees with efficient process automation? Blame H1Bs! Farmers no longer relevant due to highly automated heavy machinery? Blame Mexicans! When did building borders helped the situation? Even air-tight border separating Northern and Southern Ireland couldn't stop the real IRA terrorists...
  - kbob 10y ago
    At least 20% of the poll respondents were unaware of the cognitive dissonance between their two answers. Or else they believe Britons should have more rights than other EU citizens. (Or maybe the poll was badly worded.)
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Well if those in power can't coerce the public into doing their bidding, then they'll reason that it only makes sense for them to take away our ability to have a say in that matter
- cylinder 10y ago
  Why was UK ascending to EU without any public voting a success of democracy (implied by stating departing is a collapse of democracy) while leaving with a vote a failure?
dschiptsov 10y ago
Oh, that's simple. Democracy "works" only when majority of population is well-educated and cultured, and it tends to collapse when wast majority is ignorant, brainwashed by populism and dogmas idiots. From the time of ancient Greek only educated men could be able to vote. That accounts for obvious early success of democracy. It also correlates with the notion of the bell curve (there is a famous book) you like it or not. The utopian idea that everyone shall be able to vote leads to things like Brexit or that unrepairable disaster modern authoritarian Russia turned into. Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should. Students shall not vote for what they going to be taught (due to being not yet fully developed and brainwashed by media), this seems obvious. But the idea of necessity of some sort of competent and educated "aristocracy" is one of the major ideas in political philosophy. The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support. This, by the way, is how most of professional communities and university facilities are organized. Truth is out there.)
- GedByrne 10y ago
  "The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support." How is failure defined or support measured? What mechanism exists for quickly and easily replacing the EU beurocracy?
  - dschiptsov 10y ago
    Exactly how universities or professional communities do. Of course, there is also corruption, protectionism and cheating, but at least, competence or lack of it and failures are obvious to majority, given that they are competent themselves. Good schools manage all this well.
    - GedByrne 10y ago
      Like the professional medical community? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shipman_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shipman_Inquiry
ommunist 10y ago
The initial meaning of the Greek word "idiot" was reserved for persons not interested and non-participating in political process, especially elections.
tremon 10y ago
missing a [video] tag.
sremani 10y ago
I will be critical of Salims point esp. about India. During its democracy for the first 25 years of India was pretty much One party system, the real problem was Nehruvian Socialism and strong Unionism(not trade unions). India is a one nation, but many countries, and these two system ravaged the inherent strength and diversity, with concentration of power in New Delhi. Post liberalized India, where ever Government has "no role" actually grew tremendously well, and has done well. In India's case, the democracy is messed up at multiple levels because loyalties are more nativist rather than ideological (which is changing at least in urban India). Democracy actually got better in India in the past 20 years. The intimidation that was prevalent in 90s was not there and more and more people are voting outside their caste and religious loyalties.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  It's in vogue to pin all issues about India on Nehruvian socialism based on hindsight.
  - sremani 10y ago
    India has many problems, but most economic problems rose from Command and Control economy, that gave raise to rampant corruption, smuggling (for Gold and electronics) and many other things. Yes, most of the economic issues have texture to them but the main ingredient was government trying to control the markets, Nehru style. I could care less if it in vogue, nor it would be foolish to even think India has fully unburdened itself from Nehruvian Socialism, honestly its not even hindsight, NS is thriving in plain sight again at the cost the people and economy. The Indian Public sector banks are case and point.

32 points by rmchugh 10y ago

I turned off after he implied Brexit was a bad thing and that people were just frightened into voting for it. It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do. If politicians don't represent the will of the people, a revolution will ensue.

capote 10y ago
> It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. Actually, the majority vote is frequently one or both of these things. Whether or not this applies here.
uola 10y ago
Investors speaking without the chance of rebuttal from people who have significant experience in the subject is pretty useless. Another thing that stand out is presenting Switzerland as a role model, which has been far from problem free. Universal suffrage wasn't fully implemented until 1991 (1971 on a federal level), it's the most expensive country in Europe, have had huge drug problems as a result of public policy and want to stop immigration similarly to the UK.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thrw899 10y ago
  Women would have to serve in military in order to get right to vote. Eventually they made exception. Equal Rights Amendment did not passed for the same reason. Women would be subjected to draft.
- bhaak 10y ago
  In how many other countries did the universal suffrage get granted by a democratic vote? Calling that a failure of democracy just because it took longer seems silly to me.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  > has been far from problem free > and want to stop immigration similarly to the UK I'd say that it's rather an advantage of Switzerland model, than a problem.
  - uola 10y ago
    That didn't seem to be the sentiment of the speaker though, which is why I mention it.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Gosh Switzerland sounds like a terrible place. I have always wanted to go there for a vacation, but now I'm not so sure, is it even safe to visit?
  - uola 10y ago
    I assume you're being sarcastic, but while I like Switzerland it is a peculiar place. It's not at all uncommon that visitors experience culture shock, thinking people are unfriendly and not realizing how expensive things are. I wouldn't schedule a longer family vacation without doing some research, especially if you have family members that aren't flexible.
hobs 10y ago
>It's nonsense to suggest that the majority vote was either a bad thing or done out of fear. Excuse me? Why is that nonsense? Your argument is basically "This man made an unsubstantiated argument, so I am going to do the same thing!"
- techthroway443 10y ago
  I thought people voted for Brexit because they wanted more autonomy and didn't like the free flow of immigrants, but I guess saying people were "scared shitless" does indeed make more sense.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - audunw 10y ago
    Well, the point is that Brexit does not guarentee that either of those things will be fixed. "Scared shitless" might be hyperbole. But it's certainly very fair to say that Brexit was sold on false premises. A lot of the arguments from the Brexit campaign were straight out massive lies.
flexie 10y ago
It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years. Middle-aged and older people are not going to study abroad, they don't need an interesting job in a multinational organisation 20 years from now, they cannot imagine a single digital market or a single financial market anyways, and they don't care about it, they don't care about reserving the option of working abroad one day somewhere in Europe and they are not going to befriend or marry any foreigners anyway. Had you asked the old people in the 1960s whether rock music should be banned, the likely answer would have been "yes". The median age has increased from 34 in 1974 to 40 in 2015 and older people now constitute a majority. That's not a big issue when you let a parliament decide on political issues, since politicians would usually trade favors. But referendums are a crude form of democracy with no room for political bargaining. Matters are presented as either A or B and the winner takes it all.
- lazyjones 10y ago
  > It happened because the majority - the people who voted to leave - are mainly older and roughly speaking don't have to live with the consequences, whereas the minority - the people who voted remain - are mainly young and will live with the consequences for the next 30-40 years. How is that an explanation? If these surveys are actually true, the reason the vote ended as it did is because younger people didn't care enough to actually vote. The claim that older voters don't care about the future because it doesn't affect them personally as much is just derogatory. You could say that they have invested decades of their lives in the country and care about it more, they also knew life (in the EEC) before the EU was formed in 1993. Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to.
  - misnome 10y ago
    > Young people are just afraid of changes they cannot anticipate and have nothing to compare the status quo to. Changes with definite, visible negative consequences Versus not having any clue about changes that can not even be guessed at, advertised on explicitly untrue premises? Younger people have grown up less isolated in a much more connected world, where other ways of thinking have not been so scary and alien. This isn't 1993, and despite the hints from the campaigning, having voted to leave won't make it 1993 again.
pjc50 10y ago
In the short term, it has already been a bad thing, despite no actual change in our legal status yet. FTSE down, £/$ down a long way, Chancellor discarding the public finance targets as unmeetable. The next Budget is going to be horrendous, which is why nobody's particularly keen to jump on the job of PM. The alleged (and of course uncosted) benefits are several years away at a minimum.
- lazyjones 10y ago
  > FTSE down, £/$ down a long way, FTSE is up, not down. It's pretty much at its highest point yet in 2016. Tourism is booming and the economy will benefit greatly from the GBP drop.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    UK is running a massive trade deficit. I'm pretty sure falling GBP does not excerbate the problem in any way, shape or form /s
    - pjc50 10y ago
      The current account deficit used to be the stuff of news bulletins. It's barely mentioned these days as everyone assumes we can continue to pay for imports with foreign capital investment. This used to be a benefit of our "stability premium", as it is for Switzerland; we'll have to see if this continues.
    - lazyjones 10y ago
      Trade deficit and falling pound means: importing goods becomes more expensive, exporting and producing for the local market becomes easier.
- misja111 10y ago
  > FTSE down The FTSE is at an all year high right now, outperforming European indices after the Brexit. However, the main reason for that is compensation for the GBP drop, because most FTSE funds are internationals so the value of their foreign assets went up against the GBP.
misnome 10y ago
> It happened because politicians didn't listen to voters or do anything about their concerns and money was always the deciding factor in everything they do. Yes, and this disenfranchisement led to disingenuous politicians and media scaring people into thinking they were under attack from "The others". Almost every single argument betrays this underlying way of thinking. If immigration is so bad, then why did the places with the most immigration vote the least to leave? I have yet to hear a good example of a 'Bad' EU law, or one without good reasons. The commission is clearly chosen by elected politicians; and is demonstrably no less democratic than the choice of prime or government ministers. The new leader of this country will not have been elected so - which is our system, which is fine - but don't pretend it is any other. (interestingly, since WW2 there have now been as many mid-term changes as there have been elected prime ministers). We in theory elect politicians effectively as 'Experts' who can take the time to make the right decisions with the knowledge that we don't have time or the interest to accumulate. But we've reached the place where emotional appeals are so easy and effective to spread quickly that as soon as someone starts acting in the long term interest (which is often not so good short term, and short term is much easier to defend) they are swept aside.
- lmz 10y ago
  Remember this from 2009: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers-l... > I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far. > Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote. > This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants. The politicians knew what easing immigration restrictions would be unpopular, but they did it anyway.
- formula1 10y ago
  Im not sure what you mean by people with long term interest are swept aside by emotional appeal. If you implying that the person who markets themself better is more powerful, then yes that is true. Solid marketing in a career ment to sell a person to the masses will usually win. As for long term interest, that truly is up for debate. Some people envision a post scarcity world and want to live it out today. Some believe all groups can live harmoniously togethor. Some people think about progress at any cost. Others relate good behaviour and bad behaviour to demographics. All of these have extremes, upsides and downsides. All have the future and present in mind. Which one is right? Nobody has come up with a discrete plan or vision. We are all so early in evolution, monkeys with really really fancy toys
johndunne 10y ago
I think he mentioned Brexit because it's an example of too many voices getting lost/ignored in the 'noise' of democracy i.e a democracy needs to represent many complex issues. In the case of Brexit, many votes were cast, each vote complex in it's own right, on a binary referendum that has far reaching consequences. My take from what he's saying is that the world moves far to fast, and is far to complex for the current democratic model we hold dear to function properly for all.
abpavel 10y ago
UK Poll results: 1. British people should be free to live and work anywhere in the EU: [Agree: 52%, Disagree: 26%] 2. All citizens of EU should have the right to live and work in the UK: [Agree: 36%, Disagree: 46%] I don't think anyone wants to restrict freedom of movement. It's just about abuse of gullible nature of "us vs. them", creating a virtual enemy which you can easily blame for all your problems. The referendum did not represent will of people, it represented the mood - the negative mood towards their own government and way of life, which does not have anything to do with any migrants. I.e.: IBM creates AI replacing 30K internal employees with efficient process automation? Blame H1Bs! Farmers no longer relevant due to highly automated heavy machinery? Blame Mexicans! When did building borders helped the situation? Even air-tight border separating Northern and Southern Ireland couldn't stop the real IRA terrorists...
- kbob 10y ago
  At least 20% of the poll respondents were unaware of the cognitive dissonance between their two answers. Or else they believe Britons should have more rights than other EU citizens. (Or maybe the poll was badly worded.)
wallace_f 10y ago
Well if those in power can't coerce the public into doing their bidding, then they'll reason that it only makes sense for them to take away our ability to have a say in that matter
cylinder 10y ago
Why was UK ascending to EU without any public voting a success of democracy (implied by stating departing is a collapse of democracy) while leaving with a vote a failure?

dschiptsov 10y ago

Oh, that's simple. Democracy "works" only when majority of population is well-educated and cultured, and it tends to collapse when wast majority is ignorant, brainwashed by populism and dogmas idiots. From the time of ancient Greek only educated men could be able to vote. That accounts for obvious early success of democracy. It also correlates with the notion of the bell curve (there is a famous book) you like it or not. The utopian idea that everyone shall be able to vote leads to things like Brexit or that unrepairable disaster modern authoritarian Russia turned into. Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should. Students shall not vote for what they going to be taught (due to being not yet fully developed and brainwashed by media), this seems obvious. But the idea of necessity of some sort of competent and educated "aristocracy" is one of the major ideas in political philosophy. The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support. This, by the way, is how most of professional communities and university facilities are organized. Truth is out there.)

GedByrne 10y ago
"The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support." How is failure defined or support measured? What mechanism exists for quickly and easily replacing the EU beurocracy?
- dschiptsov 10y ago
  Exactly how universities or professional communities do. Of course, there is also corruption, protectionism and cheating, but at least, competence or lack of it and failures are obvious to majority, given that they are competent themselves. Good schools manage all this well.
  - GedByrne 10y ago
    Like the professional medical community? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shipman_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shipman_Inquiry

ommunist 10y ago

The initial meaning of the Greek word "idiot" was reserved for persons not interested and non-participating in political process, especially elections.

tremon 10y ago

missing a [video] tag.

sremani 10y ago

I will be critical of Salims point esp. about India. During its democracy for the first 25 years of India was pretty much One party system, the real problem was Nehruvian Socialism and strong Unionism(not trade unions). India is a one nation, but many countries, and these two system ravaged the inherent strength and diversity, with concentration of power in New Delhi. Post liberalized India, where ever Government has "no role" actually grew tremendously well, and has done well. In India's case, the democracy is messed up at multiple levels because loyalties are more nativist rather than ideological (which is changing at least in urban India). Democracy actually got better in India in the past 20 years. The intimidation that was prevalent in 90s was not there and more and more people are voting outside their caste and religious loyalties.

denzil_correa 10y ago
It's in vogue to pin all issues about India on Nehruvian socialism based on hindsight.
- sremani 10y ago
  India has many problems, but most economic problems rose from Command and Control economy, that gave raise to rampant corruption, smuggling (for Gold and electronics) and many other things. Yes, most of the economic issues have texture to them but the main ingredient was government trying to control the markets, Nehru style. I could care less if it in vogue, nor it would be foolish to even think India has fully unburdened itself from Nehruvian Socialism, honestly its not even hindsight, NS is thriving in plain sight again at the cost the people and economy. The Indian Public sector banks are case and point.