9 ms·
Possibly more urgent policy reforms/legislation required in India than this: 1. Codification of the law of Torts. 2. No-fault divorce. 3. More devolution of
by billfruit 6y ago
Possibly more urgent policy reforms/legislation required in India than this:
1. Codification of the law of Torts.
2. No-fault divorce.
3. More devolution of powers and policy making to states.
4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers.
5. Remove power of the central government to dismiss elected state governments.
6. Dismantle the British Era civil service designed to preserve undemocratic control over the population to a modern federal system where all decision making authority lies with elected representatives only.
7. Repeal of colonial era police and criminal codes, and moving to a more humane police and criminal justice system as in other democratic countries, including the establishment of jury system.
8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).
- screye 6y ago> 4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers. > 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state). I am sorry, but we certainly do not need the worst parts of the US system. It is not just bad. It is catastrophic. Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that allows politicians to trap the system in blockages, while pointing fingers at each other for no repercussions. > Codification of the law of Torts. I hope this never happens. The super litigious part of America through civic laws leads to a lot of services getting needlessly expensive. ________ India has big problems, but almost none of them are the ones you mention.
- lou1306 6y ago> Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that allows politicians to trap the system in blockages, while pointing fingers at each other for no repercussions. A democratic system's main concern is not efficiency, but rather robustness of the democratic process. Authoritarian states are much more efficient in passing legislation, but at what cost?
- screye 6y agoDemocracy is about allowing people's representatives to effectively pass bills for which they put them in place. Building structures at actively make that difficult are not democratic. They are just bad.
- candiodari 6y agoIt is also about protecting minorities from the majority.
- lou1306 6y agoChecks and balances are part of any functioning democracy. Sure they make things less efficient, but once you take them out, you end up with a tyranny of the majority.
- 3np 6y agoAs much as I think this proposal is unneeded, harmful, draconian and problematic in other ways, I disagree with this apple-to-oranges what-aboutisms in legislation. You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension while othe r more important ones are sorely neglected. The article is unclear abot the panel, buit I guess they have little impact on the issues you mentioned.
- coldtea 6y ago>You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension while othe r more important ones are sorely neglected. Yes. And you will be harming yourself and your country by doing so, by prioritizing the wrong things. Ending up "better than now" (by prioritizing the wrong things, but still improving some dimension) is worse than Enging up "much better than now" (by prioritizing the most important dimension to improve)
- codegeek 6y agoOr you don't get anything done by trying to be "much better than now" vs "better than now". It goes both ways.
- coldtea 6y agoPerhaps you shouldn't random walk to being better? "House is on fire? Let's throw out the trash first! That would be a better than now house, a cleaner, better smelling, burning house!"
- mushbino 6y agoHow is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better than now"?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> How is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better than now"? India has a functioning payments system. It has a dysfunctional tax system and a massive black market. Banning cryptocurrencies doesn’t really do any practical harm. It does take away, or at least make more difficult, a major route for illicit payments.
- SmokyBourbon 6y ago9. Give the people an alternative to defecating outdoors into the water supply
- princevegeta89 6y agoHow about even more serious problems like road traffic discipline, dowry, child marriages and public toilets?
- umeshunni 6y agoThose aren't problems that can be legislated away
- reactspa 6y agoRe: No fault divorce: The concept of marriage in a tradition-based society like India has a completely different meaning than "let's voluntarily have a contract, and we can break it off any time we feel like it." In order to protect the sanctity of marriage (straight or gay, I support both), the government must resist calls to make it easy to divorce. Divorce must be a painful, punishing process if society is to continue to take marriage seriously. (It must nevertheless be possible for either party in the marriage to initiate a divorce to completion. That's non-negotiable.) Just my view on this subject. And I accept that others with different experiences than mine may have different views.
- dvdkon 6y agoI don't see why marriage should be a legal process "provided" by the state. People from different cultural and personal backgrounds have differing views on marriage. You think divorce should be difficult so that people take marriage seriously, but there are likely many others in your country that would vehemently disagree. Even the choice of words, "sanctity", suggests to me that marriage would be better served as a purely religious ceremony. The government can then provide the legal aspects of today's marriage in some kind of "registered partnership", which would have none of the cultural baggage and be purely functional.
- Larrikin 6y agoThis promotes a system where the only reason anyone would get married is for a minor tax break or protection in a law suit
- manquer 6y agoYou have to remember the enormous social pressure to get married in India. I don't necessarily agree with OP on it should be complicated , however there won't be any danger of reduction in legal marriages
- azifali 6y agoDivorce should be easy. Marriage is not which needs protection and government meddling. Two consenting adults should choose to live together or apart as they feel fit. I would resist any call to make the government a part of our personal lives. Dangerous proposition to say the list with no limit to when we can draw the line.
- op03 6y ago9. Free dosas
- umeshunni 6y agoDosaCoin for everyone
- danans 6y ago> 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state). This is a terribly unfair system in the US, resulting in a voter from Texas (population 29 million) having 2% of the representation in the Senate as a voter from Wyoming (population 579000) or 5% of the representation in the Senate as a voter from Hawaii (population 1.4 million) The system has its origins at a time when only land owning white men (by definition a minority at the time) had the right to vote, and senators were chosen by state legislators, not residents. Only under that backward system could the current Senate seat allocation be seen as remotely rational, although it can in no way be viewed as just.
- lou1306 6y agoThe Senate is intentionally designed to give more power to smaller states. Otherwise, the 10-15 biggest states could routinely gang up and pass federal legislation. Not a really nice outlook for a federal government.
- nitrogen 6y agoIndeed. This is a problem that happens anyway. Getting rid of the Senate would make it worse. Just look what percentage of the western states is federal land, and what percentage of the Colorado river is claimed by California, both at the expense of people who actually live in those states.
- danans 6y agoThe Senate was designed that way when the distribution of "Free white males 16 years and upward" - the only people who could vote at that time - was far more uniform across the states [1]. There was only 1 order of magnitude difference between the voting eligible population of the smallest state (Delaware) and the largest state (Virginia). Today, that difference is 2 orders of magnitude, which is massive in comparison to what it was when the Senate seat allocation was designed. Arguments for the preservation of that system are nothing more than shallowly disguised arguments for the continued selective erosion of voting power of individuals in high population states. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
- manquer 6y ago8. There is no reason to give equal votes to all states. Why should citizes have unequal voting power ?. It is undemocratic in the U.S, The amount of power conservatives is disproportionate to the actual percentage of the population that wants them. 7. Jury system is not without its flaws. You talk about colonial era policy reformation. Juries are a commonwealth tradition! Mostly colonial countries have them. india had them till the 50-60s, it was intentionally removed as part of justice reformation. 5. In a federal or union government the state should have this power. The integrity of the state requires this power. This excerise of this power needs strong checks and balances in place , but lack of adequate controls is not a reason not to remove it entirely. 6. Elected officials always have final decision making power. Civil servants are career professionals sure have the ability to influence the decision making in what and how they present information to elected officials, abolishing civil service is basically like having a company with only senior management and no middle management. Who will execute the policy decisions? 4. Governor's power in states (not union territories or ncr) is actually pretty limited and largely ceremonial. The president and governors are artefacts of transforming from a colony. They don't have much power constitutionally by design. Electing them won't solve the problems of the office, they will just influenced by corruption by needing votes as before .
- nullc 6y ago> Why should citizes have unequal voting power ? Unequal voting power doesn't just arise from unequal votes, it also arises from correlated/block votes. Making votes unequal can counteract unequal voting power. Unequal voting is one of the reasons that e.g. people in urban centres can't just capriciously turn the far away state of Wyoming into a poorly managed nuclear waste dump.
- manquer 6y agoNevada is a poorly managed nuclear waste dump. There is nothing its citizen can do. 85 % of Nevada is federally owned and there zero recourse for its citizens on how that is used. 49% of land in Wyoming is owned by the Federal government and the federal can and will do as it pleases with the land. The two senators are not why Wyoming is a nuclear waste dump. The Senate structure all through U.S. history is vestige of the comprise between souther slave owning and northern factions. The number of states, or what area actually should be state was never carefully planned or designed to protect any minorities, it was always political decision to keep power balanced from day 1. It is political fiction to explain it as to give minorities rights, rural rights were never the intent, no document ( Bill of rights, Constitution etc) actually talks about any rural or minority rights being protected , they instead talk about 3/5ths instead. It was always about slaves, it was a huge part of the economy for the southern states.
- redpillor 6y agothis reform is good. it should stop black money and make market more lucrative
- specialist 6y agoI'll support the Clean-up Technical (Legal) Debt political coalition.