Democracy? India needs a Deng

The passive form, on the other hand, is where the government ensures that impediments to economic developments such as bureaucracy and, in the case of Hong Kong, corruption, are effectively removed. But when an economy has reached the third or fourth gear, democracy will set in and is indeed good for the preservation of wealth. In return, of course, there will be some sacrifice of economic efficiency, which is also inevitable.

Then there is the issue of East Asia8217;s definition of democracy. Western liberal democracy is not the only model. In East Asia, we are experimenting. Western liberal democracy has been shown to have too many problems. So why should we accept it hook, line and sinker? Singapore is trying one way and Malaysia another. China eventually will have its own form of democracy, and we are beginning to see signs of it. I believe Taiwan has got it wrong, for the precise reason that it is transplanting the western model.

Two other points are worth mentioning. First, even if, as you have alluded, the initial stage of capitalism is somewhat fascist, it will move away from it sooner or later if economic development were to continue. 8220;Fascist8221; is definitely too strong a word to describe the Singapore of today.

Nevertheless, we in the East understand the need to balance individual freedom with communal good. Individual greed and selfishness must, to a certain extent, be balanced by the good of the community.

Admitting that I do not know much about India, my observation is that individualism must not be allowed to run wild. Where to draw the line is an extremely tricky question, but there is no other way. The important thing is to make sure that our leaders and I mean those who exercise leadership, unlike many in India who, by virtue of the system, are not allowed to practise it are benign, relatively free of corruption and, most importantly, pro-business.

The second point relates to Japan. Democracy works there because it is not democracy. As someone once observed, Japan practises bureaucracy, not democracy. Bureaucrats provide the necessary leadership for economic development. The fact that Japanese culture makes the people very submissive to power also makes the exercise of leadership a lot easier.

Many of my Japanese friends do not seem to recognise this point. To them, democracy is less arbitrary and so they think that it is better for economic development. This is why they prefer India to China. They forget that India has true democracy and because of that it can hardly take off economically.I also questions the inevitability of democracy in 1947. Prior to that, you did not have democracy and the country apparently held itself together. So why did you need democracy when the British retreated? They wanted you to have it so that they could say that they gave it to you. If I am more cynical, then I will say that they gave it to you knowing that you will be mired in social and economic turmoil. What if a powerful leader like Deng Xiaoping or Lee Kuan Yew had emerged back then? My Indian friends probably including Shekhar Gupta tell me that it would not have worked. I am not sure. Given my ignorance of India, I may well be wrong.

Unlike some other East Asians, I do not look at India with disdain. However, I am very skeptical of your system and find it sad that so much brain power is apparently wasted in the sense that they are not allowed to be properly applied to the economic and social good of their own people.