61–70 of 128 posts
I have another theory. You don't get votes in India. You buy them. A wannabe politician needs a lot of money to win an election. Criminals who have made money through bootlegging or by beating up people have a leg up in this respect. Once they get to power, they indulge in corruption to pay off the people who helped them win and to save for the next election. The next election, they have more money to pay the average…
How do you buy votes if the ballot is secret ? Not saying that people don't try, and there is that odd politician who does come only from money. By and large most chief ministers victory can be explained not by money, but more by identity/group based politics. This is pretty much also exactly the same to what happens in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> its allowance for political opposition without fear of retribution as a modus operandi. Are we talking of the country of COINTELPRO, that killed civil rights activists, or obliterated unions and the US socialist party by force and shady tactics? it's like, you can say what you want, as long as it has zero consequences -- otherwise, prepare to meet some serious shit.
We destroyed the unions so hard that there are over 7 million government employees who are members of various unions. Because when a government really destroys a group they let huge swaths of their own employees join that group.
Article sounds racist, but this is the economist after all. Here is the thing - If you look at the past 5 Prime Ministers of India and compare them to the past 5 Presidents of the US, you will find that India more or less throws up much better candidates than the US for the top spot. If Indian politicians had such a criminal record, this would be unlikely the case.
And why do you think The Economist is generally racist? Because they don't shy away from criticizing shitty behavior just because the people doing it happen to be non-White? It's not exactly a phenomenon that's unique to India. Endemic political corruption on a local level are endemic to developing democracies around the world. Even the US had it at a certain stage of its development. Ties to organized crime were a defining characteristic of big city politics in the 19th century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you buy votes if > the ballot is secret? Is this a rhetorical question? The answer is by distributing 2,000INR notes to people and transporting them to the polling station, relying on reciprocity and promising more to come if you get elected.
No its not rhetorical and your answer is naive at best. People in India will take money if you give it to them, but they will vote on identity only. This is because there is no reciprocity - once the voting is done the politicians have no incentive to pay them again and they don't. The only reciprocity that exists, if at all, is along identity and everyone gets it. Take a look at any CM in any state of India - their…
> People in India will take money
> if you give it to them, but they
> will vote on identity only
> This is because there is no reciprocity
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well connected people to whatever > they want and get away with no > consequences > It's true practically everywhere > in the world With the occasional glaring exception (Jimmy Savile, for example) I simply don't believe that's true in most of Western Europe. The press, the judiciary, the police, and the civil service are strong institutions. Reading up on "Plebgate" will give you a feel for the truly pedestrian na…
Organized crime have had a _tremendous_ influence in Europe, and most countries of the world, up to the very top of governments. In wartime, or when the government is in a weak position domestically, they don't hesitate to resort to the muscle of mafias, and of course this has long term consequences: once they have helped the "state", they have a free hand to do a lot of things -- a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well connected people to whatever > they want and get away with no > consequences > It's true practically everywhere > in the world With the occasional glaring exception (Jimmy Savile, for example) I simply don't believe that's true in most of Western Europe. The press, the judiciary, the police, and the civil service are strong institutions. Reading up on "Plebgate" will give you a feel for the truly pedestrian na…
Don't underestimate how much you don't see. Millionaires fly without even seeing border security, meanwhile every other person spends hours waiting in line. It may not be beatings in the street but there are many laws that simply don't apply when you're rich enough.
> Millionaires fly without
> even seeing border security
If you're merely pointing out that it's possible to receive much speedier service with money, then yes, there are a wealth of commercially available options operated by airports, private and public alike. That's hardly evidence of corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't underestimate how much you don't see. Millionaires fly without even seeing border security, meanwhile every other person spends hours waiting in line. It may not be beatings in the street but there are many laws that simply don't apply when you're rich enough.
> Millionaires fly without > even seeing border security For clarity, you're saying that it's possible to arrive in -- for example -- the UK without being subject to immigration or border controls? If you're merely pointing out that it's possible to receive much speedier service with money, then yes, there are a wealth of commercially available options operated by airports, private and public alike. That's hardly evi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about 1948,1986,1992,2013... Riots , why always whining about Gujrat or you think that only in gujrat riots politicians were involved ?
With your logic, since politicians are always involved in Riots, it's ok that Modi was also involved in Gujarat Riots?