Dem!god
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2014
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- -32
- Country
- Location
By Dhruv Goyal
The world watches as 800 million eligible voters take to the polls in India, making the 2014 Lok Sabha elections the single biggest electoral exercise in history. Few people predicted India would remain a democracy post-independence because of its heterogeneous society. It is a country where people practice every major religion in the world and speak more than a hundred different languages. From an economic standpoint, the divide between rich and poor is so stark that there is a slum in the vicinity of a billion-dollar residential building in Mumbai. Even though India faces various socio-economic tensions, the strength of its institutions and division of power between the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive, have together ensured a robust democracy.
Many people argue that India has chosen to pursue democracy at the expense of economic growth. Economic growth is so crucial to a country like India because it helps lift millions of people out of poverty each year. People make frequent comparisons with China, claiming that the northern neighbor has succeeded in achieving higher growth rates under a one-party regime. Democracy does bring elements of policy paralysis, because the processes of building consensus and short-term, populist thinking on the part of the government can stifle economic development. But, when questioned, most Indians value their individual liberties, freedom and the ability to voice their opinions via representative democracy. They would be happy to sacrifice some degree of economic progress for the privilege of democracy.
So then why does this election matter? This is a historic election for mainly one reason. India currently enjoys a demographic dividend: around two-thirds of its population is under the age of 35. This means that it has a labor force of over 500 million people, analogous to China in the early 1980s—when their economy really took off. From a policymaker’s standpoint, this labor force has to be put to productive work, preferably in the organized sector. The demand for labor needs to be created through advancement of business, especially small and medium enterprises that tend to have a higher employment elasticity of growth. Economic growth will also help raise government revenues, which could sustainably fund many of the expansive social welfare schemes (Right to Education, Food Security, etc.) that the Parliament has promised.http://harvardpolitics.com/world/in...7028150577&fb_action_types=og.likes#_msocom_6
Narendra Modi fits the bill on precisely that front. As Chief Minister of the successful state of Gujarat, he has a proven track record of fostering an environment for facilitating investment and creating jobs. His state has seen tremendous growth in all three major sectors (services, manufacturing and agriculture), thereby raising the revenues necessary to fund infrastructure, skill development and educational programs. His economic success is well documented by the media, but they often ignore his work on judicial, administrative and governance reforms, which constitute a vital part of his development model. From Goldman Sachs to Citibank, every major investment house is upgrading their forecast for the Indian economy, based on the expectation of his electoral victory.
Other than creating the infrastructure necessary for attracting investment, Modi would bring some degree of policy stability to the government. Under the current government, there have been many instances of policy inconsistency like the cases of Vodafone retrospective taxation, Jet Etihad deal andOrdinance on convicted MPs, amongst others. For example, Rahul Gandhi proposed that an ordinance signed by the PM and Cabinet should be “torn up and thrown away,” disrespecting their authority. The Prime Minister and the Gandhi family have created a dual power center. The office of Prime Minister, constitutionally endowed to have the power to say “the buck stops here,” has been frequently disrespected by the Gandhi household, which has unofficially superseded it. Modi recognizes the importance of creating a strong team, soliciting opinions and recommendations, but ultimately making the final decision. He understands the dynamics of authority and accountability for the decisions that he makes. India needs stability in governance and decisive leadership.
Narendra Modi does, however, continue to face allegations of poorly responding to anti-Muslim riots that took place in his state of Gujarat, back in March 2002. He had become Chief Minister of the state only months before in October 2001. His political opposition makes two principle claims: first, that he was silent during the riots, and second, that he did not use his state machinery appropriately to end rioting. These inflammatory political accusations are particularly unfortunate, because Modi’s statement to the people of Gujarat at the time of the riots is widely available on YouTube. He is clearly seen denouncing any violent actions and makes an earnest plea to maintain peace. In terms of acting fast, Modi realized that his state machinery was inadequately equipped to tackle the violence, and therefore requested aid from the Congress-ruled neighboring state of Madhya Pradesh, who refused him any help. Simultaneously, he requested help from the national army, which intervened by the second day of the riots and prevented it from spreading any further.
These facts are all well documented, and there is clear evidence of Modi’s efforts to contain the riots. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India ordered Special Investigative Teams (SITs) to investigate Modi’s role in the riots, and they have not found a shred of evidence against him. Many critics further question this ruling, claiming that the Supreme Court could have been influenced by the central government in this decision. They fail to recognize that the investigations happened between 2010 and 2012, at which point the Congress Party was in power. Since several Congress politicians were out to indict Modi of any potential wrongdoings, they could have only influenced the case against him. The Congress Party has tried its best to continue alleging that Modi is anti-Muslim (and against all other communities) for the last 12 years. They have realized that they cannot challenge him on his developmental agenda and track record of good governance. Thus, they have continued to paint him as this anti-Muslim figure, so as to polarize the Muslim vote (which is 13 percent of the population) against Modi. If current opinion polls are anything to go by, though, it seems as though the Congress Party is failing in its attempt to shift the election agenda from development to secularism.
Why Does India Need Narendra Modi? - Harvard Political Review
The world watches as 800 million eligible voters take to the polls in India, making the 2014 Lok Sabha elections the single biggest electoral exercise in history. Few people predicted India would remain a democracy post-independence because of its heterogeneous society. It is a country where people practice every major religion in the world and speak more than a hundred different languages. From an economic standpoint, the divide between rich and poor is so stark that there is a slum in the vicinity of a billion-dollar residential building in Mumbai. Even though India faces various socio-economic tensions, the strength of its institutions and division of power between the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive, have together ensured a robust democracy.Many people argue that India has chosen to pursue democracy at the expense of economic growth. Economic growth is so crucial to a country like India because it helps lift millions of people out of poverty each year. People make frequent comparisons with China, claiming that the northern neighbor has succeeded in achieving higher growth rates under a one-party regime. Democracy does bring elements of policy paralysis, because the processes of building consensus and short-term, populist thinking on the part of the government can stifle economic development. But, when questioned, most Indians value their individual liberties, freedom and the ability to voice their opinions via representative democracy. They would be happy to sacrifice some degree of economic progress for the privilege of democracy.
So then why does this election matter? This is a historic election for mainly one reason. India currently enjoys a demographic dividend: around two-thirds of its population is under the age of 35. This means that it has a labor force of over 500 million people, analogous to China in the early 1980s—when their economy really took off. From a policymaker’s standpoint, this labor force has to be put to productive work, preferably in the organized sector. The demand for labor needs to be created through advancement of business, especially small and medium enterprises that tend to have a higher employment elasticity of growth. Economic growth will also help raise government revenues, which could sustainably fund many of the expansive social welfare schemes (Right to Education, Food Security, etc.) that the Parliament has promised.http://harvardpolitics.com/world/in...7028150577&fb_action_types=og.likes#_msocom_6
Narendra Modi fits the bill on precisely that front. As Chief Minister of the successful state of Gujarat, he has a proven track record of fostering an environment for facilitating investment and creating jobs. His state has seen tremendous growth in all three major sectors (services, manufacturing and agriculture), thereby raising the revenues necessary to fund infrastructure, skill development and educational programs. His economic success is well documented by the media, but they often ignore his work on judicial, administrative and governance reforms, which constitute a vital part of his development model. From Goldman Sachs to Citibank, every major investment house is upgrading their forecast for the Indian economy, based on the expectation of his electoral victory.
Other than creating the infrastructure necessary for attracting investment, Modi would bring some degree of policy stability to the government. Under the current government, there have been many instances of policy inconsistency like the cases of Vodafone retrospective taxation, Jet Etihad deal andOrdinance on convicted MPs, amongst others. For example, Rahul Gandhi proposed that an ordinance signed by the PM and Cabinet should be “torn up and thrown away,” disrespecting their authority. The Prime Minister and the Gandhi family have created a dual power center. The office of Prime Minister, constitutionally endowed to have the power to say “the buck stops here,” has been frequently disrespected by the Gandhi household, which has unofficially superseded it. Modi recognizes the importance of creating a strong team, soliciting opinions and recommendations, but ultimately making the final decision. He understands the dynamics of authority and accountability for the decisions that he makes. India needs stability in governance and decisive leadership.
Narendra Modi does, however, continue to face allegations of poorly responding to anti-Muslim riots that took place in his state of Gujarat, back in March 2002. He had become Chief Minister of the state only months before in October 2001. His political opposition makes two principle claims: first, that he was silent during the riots, and second, that he did not use his state machinery appropriately to end rioting. These inflammatory political accusations are particularly unfortunate, because Modi’s statement to the people of Gujarat at the time of the riots is widely available on YouTube. He is clearly seen denouncing any violent actions and makes an earnest plea to maintain peace. In terms of acting fast, Modi realized that his state machinery was inadequately equipped to tackle the violence, and therefore requested aid from the Congress-ruled neighboring state of Madhya Pradesh, who refused him any help. Simultaneously, he requested help from the national army, which intervened by the second day of the riots and prevented it from spreading any further.
These facts are all well documented, and there is clear evidence of Modi’s efforts to contain the riots. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India ordered Special Investigative Teams (SITs) to investigate Modi’s role in the riots, and they have not found a shred of evidence against him. Many critics further question this ruling, claiming that the Supreme Court could have been influenced by the central government in this decision. They fail to recognize that the investigations happened between 2010 and 2012, at which point the Congress Party was in power. Since several Congress politicians were out to indict Modi of any potential wrongdoings, they could have only influenced the case against him. The Congress Party has tried its best to continue alleging that Modi is anti-Muslim (and against all other communities) for the last 12 years. They have realized that they cannot challenge him on his developmental agenda and track record of good governance. Thus, they have continued to paint him as this anti-Muslim figure, so as to polarize the Muslim vote (which is 13 percent of the population) against Modi. If current opinion polls are anything to go by, though, it seems as though the Congress Party is failing in its attempt to shift the election agenda from development to secularism.
Why Does India Need Narendra Modi? - Harvard Political Review
