INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Nope, democracy should be adopted for countries that has the majority of the population that are stake holders for the success of the country. If the majority of the people are too poor to care about anything except feeding themselves for the next meal, than its clear that democracy would not work in that particular country. That people of that country should worry about basic living needs than worry about the country. People should first worry about themselves, and then their families, and then their communities and finally, their country. People that cannot take care of themselves or their families has no time to worry about the affairs of their countries. Their only participation in the democratic government would be to take care of the short term needs of themselves or their families. India is an example of when democracy is breaking down the country. US is an example of a successful democracy. Taiwan is marching toward a successful democracy as well.
Its scary when you consider each sub caste as a nationality and people. India should break down the barriers of caste if it wish to become a successful nation.
Democracy had been better for us, it was proved that even with widespread povery we were successful in avoiding widespread humanitarian crisis and unrest like Great Leap Forward and cultural revolution. Authoritarian regime like Communism always bring mayhem.
Infact, China invest large part of her budget in maintaining a police state