China's fulfilling autocracy and India's hungry democracy

Reading Raghav Bahl’s book ‘Superpower The Amazing Race Between India’s Tortoise & China’s Hare’ has compelled me to ask a question- Can political freedoms be cited as an excuse for slow progress, poor governance, hunger & deprivation? The theoretical logic says that democracies are better than autocracies/totalitarian states when it comes to sustainability, absorbing shocks, distributing benefits and most importantly empowering individuals. But does political freedom form a better criterion to measure the empowerment of an individual? Is it that an individual cannot remain happy/satisfied without political freedoms even if he is given reasonable monetary & material rewards? Is there no impact of socialization under a particular kind of rule? Would a hungry person not trade off his right to exercise choice in political decision making for a predictable supply of food? Which one ensures justice to an individual- electing a political representative who deprives him of basic necessities OR being ruled by a self-appointed ruler who meets all basic needs? Will the individual always prefer to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven? In many democracies politics has become a sort of ‘hate word’ and many people do not take keen interest in day to day political decision making (though they may be casting votes, following the events & expressing their choices). Many times, the practice of forming up and mobilizing public opinion compels political parties to deliberately misinterpret facts & figures; to take sides more closer to ideology than reason and to magnify the little while belittling the magnanimous. Though all this politics(luring, lobbying, convincing etc) has become part of daily social life in democratic societies especially in western countries, it’s difficult to argue that an individual who has had no exposure to these democratic processes will find it necessary. He may even find democracy very chaotic, confusing and destabilizing. And what if this attitude is mixed with moderately good governance and nationalist propaganda supporting existing political structure? Those (un)wishful thinkers and democracy enthusiasts who believe that China’s society will eventually adopt democracy and political freedoms need to think again. They argue that economic freedoms and material growth cannot continue unabated without creating a ripple effect on political sphere. It holds true when the society has enjoyed the freedoms at some point of time and has lost them under the current regime/system e.g. British Rule had brought partial democracy by establishing semi-democratic institutions & giving media freedoms which convinced its nationalist leaders about the benefits of meaningful democracy and they created a mass movement demanding the same. Each set of reforms, be it in 1909, 1919 or 1935 brought incremental democratization and politicization of Indian people. This was followed with strong promotion of democracy by all major nationalist leaders and free press. Hence, the people in India had had fair deal of experience of meaningful democracy when emergency was imposed by the then PM Indira Gandhi in 1976. Thus, when the curbs on political freedoms started becoming rule rather than a rarity (during emergency period), the people started feeling suffocated and they threw Indira government out of power in next elections. Chinese society has not had any such experience of true democracy at any time in its history. It has never been given political freedoms which have been taken away later on. Its people have long remained under authoritarian rule. Before 1911, it was Qing Dynasty, then Civil war between Sun-yat-sen & Mao’s forces and after 1949, under Communist Party of China led by Mao-tse-tung, Deng Xiaoping & the likes. A society cannot be expected to revolt for something which it has never experienced. The era of globalization means that the world is more and more inter connected and voices of pain and injustice can spread very fast and mould public opinion. But China’s ruling party seems to be aware of all this. It is wary of most feeble of the voices rising against its rule. It has adopted censorship & hard handedness on one hand and is improving governance on the other (carrot and stick policy) so that people are getting a fairer deal today than before. Moreover, China has given to its people better infrastructure and lifted its people through nearly all the social/prosperity indicators. It has fought hunger and poverty faster than any country in the world. Yes, there is opposition against Chinese government’s forceful land acquisition, crony capitalism and corruption. But, comparing this to India (which lags far behind across almost all economic/social indicators), I ask myself have we given a better deal to our people. Anyone from India will accept that corruption at the lowest levels hurts the most deprived the most. Hunger, poverty, roads, railways, etc everything has been politicized but ironically, politicization has resulted in slower action and redressal of grievances. We remain stuck at decisions for longer than their utility, our implementation record is pathetic and our elected leaders care more about their vested interests. We are facing insurgencies & Maoist problem which are at least partially attributable to our inability to provide basic necessities to our people. Rather than waiting for China’s fall (it’s not going to happen soon), I think we should introspect and try to ensure that our own ship of democracy sails smooth. Then only, we can set example for Chinese or anyone. Meaningful democracy means taking everyone along but it does not mean that in doing so you can miss the train of development again and again.