外國網友辯論：如果民主如此偉大，為何中國領先印度？

If democracy is so great, why is China way ahead of India?龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com如果民主如此偉大，為何中國遙遙領先印度？龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.com——————————————————————————————————————————龍騰網 http://www.ltaaa.comBalaji ViswanathanIf water is so great, why do you need food? This question sounds like that. Democracy and free markets are both a necessity for a healthy economy. India and China are two faulty countries, both missing a key element. India is an experiment with democracy but no free market. China is an experiment with relatively free markets but no democracy. Both are failed experiments as the chart below would show:

Although China is ahead of India, it is way, way behind its East Asian peers who are democracies. Thus, instead of worrying about India"s democracy. Democracy is one saving grace for India that allows the nation to be much more peaceful and powerful compared to its South Asian peers.你的問題就像：「如果水這麼重要，為什麼還要吃飯？」對於健康的經濟來說民主和自由市場都是必須的。印度和中國是兩個有問題的國家，都缺少一個關鍵元素。印度是個民主試驗場但沒有自由市場。中國有自由市場經濟但沒有民主。下圖將展示給你他們都是失敗的嘗試：儘管中國領先印度，但換個角度，他遠遠落後於其他東亞民主國家。因此，不要擔心印度的民主，民主是印度的一個可取之處讓印度比其他南亞國家更加穩定和強大。——————————————————————————————————————————Somnath Mishra, Born Indian, not Proud!Do not cherrypick, why is China way behind Japan? Way behind the US? Way behind the UK, way behind South Korea in per capita measures.Aren』t these all democracies?Democracy is a system and a system alone is not enough for it to function perfectly, it requires people to contribute to it equally. Can we compare the current state of Indian democracy with the exemplary monarchies of ancient India? Like India under Samudragupta, Harshvardhan, or the Maurya dynasty? Probably not! An exemplary monarch is any day better than a democracy however a bad monarch is way worse than a bad democracy!Indian democracy is immature and is still suffering from the post colonial social problems of caste and religious divide. In India people dont cast their votes, they still vote their caste. That way democracy is unlikely to fulfill its potential. Of course people are getting more educated and more aware with time but it still needs at least 50 more years to mature.Then there』s free market, India was a closed market and a socialist country until 1991, which badly affected its progress. As a nation India lacks the resources to meet the demands of its own population, the model of socialism only works if the country has surplus resources which India unfortunately lacks.你不能這麼比，為何中國在人均層面落後日本？為何落後美國？落後英國，落後韓國？他們不都是民主國家嗎？民主是一種制度，而一個制度不足以讓事情都完美運轉。他需要人們都平等的做出貢獻。我們能比較現代印度的民主和古代印度的模範君主嗎？就像笈多王朝和孔雀王朝那會？肯定不能！好的君主隨便哪一天都比民主好但是壞的君主可比壞民主糟糕的多。印度的民主是不成熟的，飽受後殖民時代的種姓制度及宗教問題的影響。在印度人們不投票，他們仍然選他們的種姓。這樣的民主不可能發揮其潛力—當然隨著時間的推移人們會獲得更多的教育和見識，但這仍需至少50年時間才能成熟。、然後說說自由市場經濟，直到1991年，印度還是個封閉市場的社會主義國家，嚴重影響了印度的發展，印度作為一個國家缺乏資源來滿足內需，社會主義制度只在國家生產過剩的時候管用，不幸的是印度缺乏產能。——————————————————————————————————————————Makarand Sahasrabuddhe,This question is based on flawed logic. You are defining "way ahead" in terms of a set of parameters (presumably size of the economy, infrastructure, time taken to get anything done etc) and then asking about "greatness" of something that is only marginally connected to the metrics you use to define the situation of being "way ahead".Somewhat like, "If Indian culture is so great, why are American movies winning more Oscars?"As Winston Churchill had once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It is the best (from all those available at this juncture) form of government if you use；freedom for the people.；engagement of people in decision making.；better governance.；respect for human rights.as parameters. If you use purely economic parameters, then an autocratic form of government may be able to do well in the short term since it does make decision making efficient.Also before saying that China is way-ahead, ask yourself if you would like to live in a place where：；you couldbe jailed for expressing the slightest dissent.；large infrastructure projects run roughshod over environmental concerns damaging long term national interest；your government decides that you can have only one child.In the long term though, democracies don"t do too badly - have a look at the USA and most of Western Europe.這個問題有邏輯缺陷。你定義的領先都是一些參數諸如：經濟規模，基建，效率等等。然後你問的偉大的事情和你所定義的遙遙領先的關係幾乎是風馬牛不相及。就像你問：既然印度文化如此偉大，為何美國電影獲得了奧斯卡？丘吉爾曾說過：「除了所有已經嘗試過的制度，民主是最糟糕的政治制度。」這是最好的你當下所有政府制度中可以使用的：；人民自由；人民更好地參與決策；更好的治理；對人權的尊重參數方面。如果你僅僅只看經濟參數，獨裁政府也許在短期內會做的不錯畢竟他的決策都很有效率。之前你說中國遙遙領先，問問你自己如果你生活再這樣一個地方：；如果你表達絲毫的異議就會被囚禁；大型基礎設施無情的破壞生態環境並長時間損害國家利益；你的政府規定你只能有一個孩子從長遠眼光看，民主制度並不是太壞，看看美國和絕大多數西歐國家吧。——————————————————————————————————————————Kirk WuBy "way ahead" I assume you are talking about pace of development/economic growth. Economic growth comes from good governance, and democracy does not necessarily provide good governance. Democracy is about social justice, transparency and fairness. India"s level of governance is low. China"s level of governance is high. India has democracy (heavily flawed though it is), China has no democracy. The "great" thing I assume would be an ideal world in which you can have both democracy and good governance? And there are many good examples for that like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.關於遙遙領先我猜你說的是經濟發展方面，經濟增長來源於有效的管理，而民主不提供有效的管理，民主是關乎社會公正，法治，透明的。印度管理水平低，中國的管理水平高。印度有民主（儘管有嚴重缺陷），中國沒有民主。關於偉大我設想的是一個既民主又有良好行政的世界?這有很多很好的例子比如戰後的德國和日本。——————————————————————————————————————————Ishaan RajChina is ahead of India, Agreed !!But countries ahead of China like USA, UK, Germany are all democracy. Democracy gives everyone their rights, and people can decide their leader. There are a lot of flaws in " so called system" here in India. Like people getting paid to vote.Democracy depends on people, and a lot people cannot see a bigger picture mainly because of illiteracy. This allows politicians and lawmakers to fool them. 中國領先印度，我同意！但是領先中國的美國英國德國都是民主國家。民主給予每個人權利，而且人民可以決定他們的領袖是誰。印度所謂的民主有很多缺陷，比如人們拿錢投票.民主取決於人民，許多人無法看到更大的世界因為他們是文盲，這使得政客和立法者可以愚弄他們。——————————————————————————————————————————Chandravadan Trivedi1) Democracy works where the population is literate, & have freedom of speech & free economy. Though on paper, but in actual fact, illiterates get inside as law makers.China: Mao has had the best road map for making people work, with no democracy.Work brings in direct results.E.g.Germany, Taiwan, S.Korea, Singapore.2) Indian law makers - especially the leaders, have at the most a law degree & are not technically educated.technology is needed to develop a country - not law makers. The MP"s don"t understand technical proposals & have the habit of sending them to select committees.China: All their leaders have an engineering degree, & they can understand the technicalities of development & for this reason they have advanced this far.3) They have been instrumental in curtailing their birth rate - as higher population eats away the results of development.India: It"s a ticking bomb, & no worthwhile rules & regulations are still in place to curtail birth rate.4) India: The judicial system is too laggard & slow to give results, with the result - it"s justice delayed - no justice.China: Justice is imminent & results are very fast enough。5) China: Most of the members of hierarchy are members of armed forces & are disciplined.India: Nobody would have been even an N.C.C. cadet, forget any military training. Such leaders cannot be expected to give any results.6) China: They had a chequered past.They have seen ample civil wars & those against foreign powers. They are a weather beaten people.India: Only the Punjabis had a chequered past, as they had to bear the brunt of Moghul invasions. This is the reason why Punjabis constitute almost 1/3 of Indian Army. The Indians are not weather beaten like the Chinese - with the result - they take things easy & lightly.1.在人民受過教育，有言論自由和自由經濟的地方民主才有作用。名義上，但實際上，文盲混入了立法者的行列。2.印度的立法者-特別是領導層，最多只有個法學學位而且沒有受過理工科教育。技術是發展國家所必需的-而不是立法者。議員們看不懂工程建議書也沒有習慣把這些送到特別委員會去。中國：所有領導層都有工學學位，他們可以理解發展建設的各種術語這就是他們增長如此之快的原因。3.中國一直在設法減少人口出生率-太多的人口會侵蝕發展的成果；印度：這是一個定時炸彈，在這裡毫無章法和規則去限制人口出生率。4.印度：司法制度太過遲緩和落後去給出一個結果，所以呢，公正來得太遲或者沒有公正；中國：正義就在眼前而且結果出來的足夠快。5.中國大多數軍方高層都嚴謹守紀，印度軍官甚至都不如一個NCC實習學員，忘記任何軍事訓練，這樣的指揮能期待有什麼結果。6.中國:他們有一個曲折的歷史。他們見識了太多的內戰以及反抗外國勢力。他們是一個飽經風霜的人。印度:只有旁遮普人有一個曲折的過去,他們不得不在莫卧兒入侵中站在前面。這就是旁遮普人構成幾乎1/3的印度軍隊的原因。印度人不像中國人那樣經歷了風吹雨打—所以他們做事懶散輕浮。
推薦閱讀：