does india need a dictator
Content
Construct :Political System of the country. Dependent Variables:Growth and prosperity of India Independent Variables:Corruption, Divisive Tendencies, Nepotism, Unemployment, Illiteracy.
CONTENTS • Introduction to democracy • Social Values in democracy • Challenges to democracy • India since independence • Introduction to dictator • Does India need a dictatorship setup? • Which setup is pertinent for India? • Conclusion • Screenshots • Refrences
Introduction-Democracy
Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion. In practise, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy. Although no country has ever granted all its citizens (i.e. including minors) the vote, most countries today hold regular elections based on egalitarian principles, at least in theory. The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy in which the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level and on exceptions on national level in many countries, though these systems coexist with representative assemblies. Elements considered essential to democracy include freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them. The term "democracy" is often used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
Democracy is often confused with the republic form of government. In some definitions of "republic," a republic is a form of democracy. Other definitions make "republic" a separate, unrelated term.
Definition
While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."[12] This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as "not only a political system… [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (whilst maintaining judicial independence). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.
Forms Of Democracy
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others .However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy are all major examples of attempts at a form of government that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens. The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.
Representative Democracy Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[55] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of
representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentary Democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people. Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal.In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. Presidential Democracy Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature.
While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system. Semi-presidential A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. This form of democracy is even less common than a presidential system. This system has both a prime minister with no fixed term and a president with a fixed term. Depending on the country, the separation of powers between the prime minister and president varies. In one instance, the president can hold more power than the prime minister, with the prime minister accountable to both the legislature and president. On the other hand, the prime minister can hold more power than the president. The president and prime minister share power, while the president holds powers separate from those of the legislature.The president holds the role of commander in chief, controls foreign policy, and is head of state ("the face of the people"). The prime minister is expected to formulate the Presidents policies into legislature.The prime minister is the head of government and as such he is expected to formulate the policies of the party that won the election into legislature. This type of government can also create issues over who holds what responsibilities. Constitutional Democracy A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties). In a constitutional democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to
emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere. Direct Democracy Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: 1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise. Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. Inclusive democracy Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e.self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the
journal Democracy & Nature' and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy.The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates. Consensus Democracy Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule. Cosmopolitan Democracy Democracy is not only a political system… It is an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human. Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy , is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition,
cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them. According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organizations, e.g. the United Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.
SOCIAL VALUES IN DEMOCRACY “Freedom” here is not used in the narrower liberal sense of formal freedom under the law or the free-for-all of economic markets, but rather means the concrete legal, social, economic, cultural and political conditions that enable citizens to live a self-determined life; “Equality” does not just mean equality before the law, but also the concrete legal, social, economic, cultural and political conditions that give all citizens equal chances to participate and equal opportunities in life; A fraternity is an organized society of men associated together in an environment of companionship and brotherhood; dedicated to the intellectual, physical, and social development of its members. Fundamental Rights' is a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harThese rights universally apply to all citizens, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, color or Gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain restrictionsmony as citizens of India.
•
Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2][3]Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality .Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls.
•
Challenges to Democracy
The survival of Indian democracy for well over half a century deprives the country's diversities, is in many ways a remarkable achievement. However, no one can deny that the country's contemporary socio-economic and political problems are complex. There are a number of serious challenges that need to be met in the years ahead.
•
Divisive tendenciesIn a country of over a billion people, Indian nationalism has for long survived the divisive tendencies of caste, crass, religion and languages. But recent past growing violence in the name of religion and sub nationalism has posed a great threat to the smooth functioning democracy in India.
•
ExtremismThere is an organized attempt by forces inimical to freedom and peace in our region to destroy Indian democracy by striking at the every roots of our nationhood. Over a period of time there has been a systematic effort to spread communal disharmony and conflict in India
•
UnemploymentThe employment growth in organized sector, public and private combined has declined during the period between and 2006 and the situation has got aggravated during the last year due to the global financial crisis.
•
TerrorismThe neighbouring countries are not liking our grown and progress and therefore, we are facing challenge of terrorism from the side of our neighbour. Pakistan started war in 1947 itself when it occupied one third of Kashmir without our sanction and that part is still with iThis terrorism started from Kashmir and they could identify people who could help them and now this Pakistani terrorism is available throughout in India. We have seen that the terrorists had targetted Red Fort and even they attacked Parliament of India too.t.
•
RegionalismThis is the main weakness of Indian democracy today. A large part of the Indian politics has been reduced to 'Identity politics, be it caste, religious or regional identities, ~ and this brings divisive forces to play.
•
IlliteracyLiteracy in India, says UNESCO, is an indispensable means for effective social and economic participation, contributing to human development and poverty India is one of the countries (along with the Arab states and sub-Saharan Africa) where the literacy levels are still below the threshold level of75% hut gigantic efforts a on to achieve that level. Without literate and well inform 'Citizens, no democracy can be participative in the true sense.
•
Corruption & nepotismThis is another major problem in our country today. Many of us have simply accepted it as sad reality. But unless we are able to fight corruption, the benefits of development can never be shared equitably and democratically.
INDIA since independenceIndia was a British colony. It earned its independence from the British on 15/08/1947. Day before that Pakistan which was created as a result of partition of British India was established and flanked on two sides of India: West Pakistan which is called today Pakistan, and east Pakistan, now an independent state called Bangladesh. After its independence, the political leaders of India adopted the liberal democratic system for the
country. Since its independence, India has transformed a lot. When India attained independence in 1947, its population was around 400 million people. Now there are billion people in India. India is the largest democracy in the world. It has the biggest number of people with franchise rights and the largest number of political parties, which take part in election campaign. Before its independence, India was never a single country but a bunch of different entities. Many predicted that India, because of diversities in its cultures, religion, languages, castes, manners, local histories, nationalities and identities, would not survive as a single democratic country, but would break up into smaller countries. Since independence, India had many political problems. During independence the most burning issues were the riots between the Hindus and Muslims while the Sikhs were siding with Hindus. Another issue was convincing the Princely states not to declare independence or join Pakistan but to join the Indian Union. India also had a few wars with its neighbors on border issues. India also has many internal problems. Different communities with different identities regional, language, caste, religion - demanded different rights for their communities. Some communities demanded more autonomy for their cultures within the Indian states. Others demanded autonomous states within the Indian Union, while the others demanded to be independent from India. With all its problems India survives as a single state with democratic character. Before independence our country was at the mercy of her foreign rulers. They did whatever they liked for the good of their own country. After independence much has been done to improve the condition of the masses. Some of the important achievements of free India made during the last fifty years are as follows. In the economic field, unprecedented progress has been made. Our five year plans have been successfully completed. Many Multipurpose projects have been taken in hand. Bhakra Nagal, Hirakud and Damodur valley projects have been completed. Many new factories have been started. Sindri Fertilizers Factory, Haldia Fertilizer Complex, Barauni and Guna Fertilizer Factory etc., are producing chemical fertilizers. Important Steel plants are fulfilling our requirements of steel. The per capita income has been raised. Our exports have been increasing in different
spheres. The difficult food problem has been solved. To-day there is enough food for all. Power –generation has also been increased several folds. A net-work of ordinance factories has been established and most sophisticated weapons for the defense of the country are being produced. In 1989, India successfully fired Agni, a long range missile. Since then ‘Akash’ surface to air long range missile, ‘Trishul’, ‘Nag’ and recently ‘Prithivi’ surface to surface short range missile have been launched. This shows further advance in the growth of the country’s science and technology. Rapid advances have been made in the field of electronics and comprehensive program of computerization is also under way. Thus gradually, but steadily, we are achieving self-sufficiency and stability in the economic field.Free India has also made rapid advance in the field of science and technology. Atomic energy has been successfully used for power generation. India successfully conducted under ground atomic tests for peaceful purposes. Now India is nuclear power nation. The launching of “Aryabhatta”, “Rohini”, “Apple” INSAT-1 and INSAT-1(D) satellites marks the entry of India in to the space age. Since then many more multi-purpose satellites have been sent in to outer space. India Space Organization had completed four launchers of the Satellite Launch Vehicle-3(SLV-3) for of Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicles (ASLV) and two developmental PSLV. With this India became the fifth nation in the world capable of launching 1000 kg satellite in its intended orbit. Now it is ready to enter the GSLV programme through which India will not only have vastly improved telecommunication capability, but also satellite monitoring capabilities which will be of great value of our security. Revolutionary changes have also been brought about in the political field. Our country is now sovereign Democratic Republic. All citizens have equal rights in the eyes of law, irrespective of their caste, creed, sex and religion. To bring democracy to the villages, Panchayats have been established and Panchayati Raj has become a reality. The launching of the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna is another revolutionary step to improve the conditions of rural poor. There is a general awakening among the people. They have begun to understand their rights and duties. We may find men in the street discussing various political problems with great interest. Thus, we are enjoying the fruits of freedom. We may hold our heads high due to the success of foreign policy, which has raised the prestige of the country.
Achievements in the social sphere are also clearly visible. The Zamindari system has been abolished. The tiller of the land is now its owner. Untouchability is a legal offence today. To drive out the demon of drink from society, prohibition has been introduced. Socialistic pattern of society is the aim towards which our country is making rapid progress. To reduce the inequalities in the industrial field many industries have been nationalized. To bring about uniformity in weights and measures, the metric system has been introduced. Prostitution, in any form has been made legal offense. These achievements are of great social significance. Social security schemes have been introduced in some big industrial towns. The government is busy in clearing slums and constructing new houses for the industrial workers and the weaker sections of society. Lakhs of refugees came to India first from Pakistan, then from Bangladesh, and more recently from Ceylon. But India has successfully solved the refugee problem. This is a mighty achievement. So it becomes clear that no aspect of life has been left untouched. India has successfully followed the policy of noon alignment. As a result of India’s efforts, the non-alignment movement has become a force in the world affairs. India’s voice now carries weight in international forums. Important laurel won by India recently is the obtaining of the sole right for the exploration of a very large area of the Indian Ocean for its mineral wealth. Similarly, India has established its base in the Antarctica for exploration and research in the difficult region. But this long list of free India’s achievements should not make us proud. We should not feel satisfied by looking at our achievements. We should keep in mind the problems which are yet to be solved. The masses of country are still poor and backward. Many social evils still prevail. Corruption is widespread. Terrorism is raising its ugly head in several arts of the country. The balance of payment position is difficult and threat sanctions are looming large. To face various economic problems a comprehensive programme of economic reforms has been undertaken. Economic polices have been liberalized, a number of controls have been removed, and multinationals have now been allowed to operate freely in the country.
Private enterprise has also been encouraged, and Indian capitalists have been invited on a large scale to set up industries in various field. Above all the appeal of democracy has depended over the years. This style of governance has neatly fitted the lifestyle of a majority of Indians. Democracy now cuts across the parties, educational levels, classes, castes, religions, and gender and ethnics divisions. Indeed India democracy today despite all its institutional problems is stronger in the minds of people then it ever was. The social and territorial spread of legitimacy has survived even the sharp decline in the peoples trust in politicians in recent years.However with faith in our leaders and our capacity for works, we are sure to overcome our present powerful nation of the world. difficulties. The present difficulties should not discourage us. Free India is destined to become a
Introduction-Dictator
A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with military control or bribes) but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch. When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency . Like the term "tyrant" (which was originally a respectable Ancient Greek title), and to a lesser degree "autocrat", "dictator" came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.
In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality. The term "dictator" is comparable to, but not synonymous with, the ancient concept of a tyrant; initially "tyrant", like "dictator", did not carry negative connotations. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators. They may hold left or right-wing views, or can even be apolitical. Some examples of leaders widely viewed as dictators include Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Paul Kagame, Francisco Franco, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Yoweri Museveni, Alexander Lukashenko, Ferdinand Marcos, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Robert Mugabe, Benito Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Ruhollah Khomeini Suharto, Mao Zedong, and Meles Zenawi. INDIRA GANDHI-THE INDIAN DICTATOR? June 25th, 1975 was the day that Indira Gandhi revealed that within her beats the heart of a ruthless dictator. On the 35th anniversary of that day, it is appropriate to remember that the Congress party brought authoritarian rule to India for the first time after independence. More accurately, Indira Gandhi brought dictatorship to the land. What matters today is that the descendants of Indira Gandhi are becoming increasingly powerful and could very well revert to dictatorial ways. Let’s ponder that for a bit. I have nothing per se against dictators. In small or large measures, organizations and institutions have people at the top who make decisions and enforce their dictates either through a force or through persuasion. There’s nothing in a flawed democratic setup that
recommends it over the rule of an enlightened dictator. Mrs Gandhi’s dictatorship is not the kind that recommends itself to me. I was not thrilled by the dictatorship of the original Mrs Gandhi. I am even less thrilled by the dictatorship of the Italian Mrs Gandhi. For now, she’s just dictating to her lackeys such as Manmohan Singh and Pratibha Patil, and the party she heads. But if the Congress ever gets a majority in the parliament, we can expect a full-blown dictatorship for India. Italy gave the world fascism. Mussolini was an Italian. Worth keeping in mind. But we should pause here to remember that dictators and dictatorships are endogenous, not exogenous, to the population. In an introduction to Étienne de La Boétie’s Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (1576), Murray Rothbart writes that the fundamental insight was . . . that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent. India needs enlightened leaders, whether dictators or democrats. But it has been getting stupid leaders — dictators and “democrats” — not because of some unfortunate accident but because the population at large is not “enlightened.” For India to get decent leadership, Indians have to change. At a minimum, Indians have to stop being impressed by charlatans and crooks. Indians have to demonstrate that they can take the long view, that they are not willing to vote criminals into office.
Indians have granted “their obedience by their own consent” to dictators for a long while. The most recent in living memory is Mrs Indira Gandhi. Before that it was to their British overlords. Before that to the Islamic invaders. It goes into remote antiquity perhaps. On the 35th anniversary of Mrs Gandhi’s revelation of her true nature as a dictator, it is absolutely important that we remind ourselves that it is high time Indians gave up voluntary servitude. Garibaldi as a positive dictator Still, even in the 19th Century, the term "Dictator" did not always have negative connotations. For example, the Italian revolutionary Garibaldi, during his famous Expedition of the Thousand in 1860, proclaimed himself "Dictator of Sicily", which did not prevent him from being extremely popular in Italian and international public opinion. His usage of the term was clearly derived from the original Roman sense - i.e., a person taking power for a limited time in order to deal with an emergency (in this case, the need to unite Italy) and with the task done Garibaldi handed over power to the government of Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. Garibaldi's case was, however, an exception. In general, the term "dictator" came to be a negative term, not a title used by rulers to call themselves but a term used by the foes of an oppressive ruler. Such was the case with Maximillien Robespierre, whose supporters knew him as "The Incorruptible", while his opponents called him "dictateur sanguinaire", French for "bloodthirsty dictator". The following is a list of national leaders (heads of state and/or heads of government) commonly regarded as modern dictators. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:
•
is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state where the position is not formally hereditary; governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;
•
•
commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état, or resorts to them to stay in power; may develop a cult of personality; may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.
• •
Some so-called "benevolent dictators" may be viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil". The modern usage of the term 'dictator' developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in republics, so traditional monarchs are not usually described as dictators in historical commentary. Also excluded from this list are those who held absolute power during national emergencies, but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Otherwise those included have been widely cited by historians or described by the media as dictators. Any controversy surrounding such characterisation is mentioned in the notes.
Some Examples of Dictators with there time of Rule and end of Rule
Country Name
Ayub Khan Pakistan Yahya Khan Pakistan Muhammad ZiaPakistan ul-Haq Maumoon Abdul Maldives Gayoom Hossain Bangladesh
Came to power
1958 by coup 1969 1978 1978 1982 by coup
Lost power
1969 1971 1988 2008 1990
Country Name
Mohammad Ershad Pervez Musharraf Pakistan
Came to power
Lost power
1999 by coup
2008
DOES INDIA NEED A DICTATORSHIP SETUP??
India is a democratic country which has done well to make sure that we do not fall backwards on the wheel of time. With the advancement of science we have progressed after our independence and now the world looks upon us as a country to look at. India had the sense to follow the democratic set up of leadership after our independence while many countries went other paths. North Korea in fact have a dictator ship true even now, Iraq had a dictator in Saddham Hussain until Americans over threw him. But our very neighbor china has gone behind the communist setup.
The question here is does India need a dictatorship? That would mean that the present system followed by India is faulty. Well let us what all are the defects that are plaguing the democratic setup of India. Bureaucracy Indian bureaucracy is definitely one of the slowest, the decision making power in the country has too many layers which make it impossible to get a decision done quickly. There are many case still pending in Indian judicial system that can be said to be dating back to around 15 years. Hence what happens is the fast development of the country is delayed. Corruption Corrupting officers increases more in the democratic setup due to the slowness in decision making, the officers who are corrupting are well aware that no action will be taken against them strongly an speedily in such a setup. In many cases these disadvantages have yelled to anarchy like chapplas being thrown at ministers and wide spread protests in the country. India have witnessed such uprisings many times. Recently the Anna Hazare episode where the whole country emerged to take reigns against the government is an example of how the people agitations can be caused by the corruption and slowness into democratic forms of government.
Advantages of Dictatorship Government Dictatorship can be defined as a form of government in which the power is centralized. It either lies with a single person or a small group of people. The general population has no say in the functioning of the government. The people do not have any choice with regards
to by whom or how their country will be run. In a dictatorship form of government, the people are expected to do, whatever is decided for them by the dictator. China, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Cuba, among many others, follow dictatorship form of government. Now that we know what is dictatorship, let us try to understand what are the advantages of dictatorship. Stable Government As in a dictatorship, the decision making lies with only one person and others do not have any say in the working of the government, it offers a kind of stability to the country. Problems such as frequent elections, as in the case of democracy, or a disruption of peace due to political factions, do not arise in a dictatorship. Less Room for Corruption Another of the dictatorship advantages is that a dictator is very stringent with regards to the rules, regulations, penalties, punishments and rewards. This makes the people working under him less liable to corruption. Most Efficient During Emergencies When a country faces any kind of emergency situation such as a war or a health epidemic, a dictatorship government can prove to be the most efficient one. The reason being that all the decisions are taken by one person, so there is no ambiguity with regards to the plan of action as well as individual responsibilities that are fixed to cope with the emergency situation. So, one of the main advantages of dictatorship over democracy is that it is better equipped to face emergencies. Lesser Crime Rate Most of the dictatorship governments are police states. So, in a way there is low crime rate under such regimes. Another reason for a better law and order situation in these states is that various laws are passed immediately, without any discussion or waiting for the public opinion on them. This leads to better control over crimes too. "Things Happen" Quickly In a dictatorship form of government, all things, whether related to governance or
businesses or anything else, happen much quicker than in other types of government. The reason for this is the same i.e. decision making lies with a single person. These are some of the advantages of dictatorship. Although, for these advantages to translate into real life, a dictator needs to be self less, benevolent, well experienced and intelligent. As a dictator has unlimited power, if he does not possess these qualities, the disadvantages of dictatorship, such as oppression of people, no freedom of choice for the people, accumulation of wealth in a few hands, loss of civil rights, flawed decision making, etc. can lead the country toward a wrong path. Looking at the stakes associated with a dictatorship form of government, many countries under such a regime are considering becoming democracies, which is a form of government for the people, of the people and by the people. Today, looking at the progress democracies such as America and India are making, democracy is considered the best form of governance. Considering the advantages this type of government will give, the lies far serious problems with dictator hip model of formation of government. But this would mean that the country would run on the whims and fancies of a singular man who will try his best to do everything to make sure he runs in full luxury. He can run the country in whatever manner he likes and further the rights of the citizens to protest against him will be less. Any protests will be dealt with strong power and the press freedom too will be hampered. We have seen many instances where the dictators have used their powers particularly for accumulating the wealth and live luxury not caring anything about the life of the people in the country. There also arises the problem of over spending of public resources.If I am asked to choose between the democratic setup and dictatorship, I would definitely go after the democratic setup where the rights and life of people are valued. The speed of progress may be slow but it si sure no way top trade for a life with dignity. here are many disadvantages of dictatorship. The main one being loss of freedom. In a dictatorship power is concentrated into one persons hands and what they say goes. The
main problem with this is it is almost always abused. A prime example is Hitler that alone says why dictatorships aren't what's up and we do not want to go in that direction.
DISADVANTAGES: 1) People are afforded little or no individual liberty. Civil rights are trampled on. 2) A dictator’s policies suit his/her own needs. Needs of the people may be neglected. 3) Decision making has a narrow base - can be flawed, wrong, dangerous, and not fully supported by the people. 4) Over spending of the public resources. 5) India is the 2nd largest country in the world, which will not be able to control or manage under a dictatorship setup 6) It may lead to unrest and conflict among people and politicians. 7) Stability of a nation closely relate to its foreign policy. A dictatorship rule can’t maintain these policies
Which Setup Is Pertinent For India?
•
India is a democratic country which has done well to make sure that we do not fall backwards on the wheel of time. With the advancement of science we have progressed after our independence and now the world looks upon us as a country to look at.
•
India being a strong democratic country doesn’t really need a dictator. It may just lead to disruption.
•
India is a big country. People live in harmony and are known for their unity. A dictator may not be able to maintain this. Few people may again misunderstand dictatorship and may think it defies the purpose of freedom.
•
Dictatorship may bring very short term changes. A country needs a strong government. Dictatorship may introduce communal differences depending on the community of the dictator.
• •
Human rights can be certainly bypassed. It may lead to disorganization and malfunctioning of the law and order system of the country.
CONCLUSION:: We all were taught that Dictatorship is bad and democracy is good, self- government is good. But, we cannot say that self government is a substitute for a good government. India is a nation where there are starvation deaths happening in routine in the Ganjam District of Orissa. And on the other hand,every year there are grains worth crores being rotten or eaten by rats. why can't these grains be given to those poor people who die every day because of starvation ?
whom should we blame this for ? The person who stands between not making things happening is a politician . Corruption starts from a politician and it starts from the head of his power to the tail . Hence ,in a way INDIA DEMANDS A BENEVOLENT LEADER, NOT A DICTATOR ! A leader who believes in making things right & fair . Development, foreign policies, trade relations, education, corruption free nation should be the commitment he should work towards. Educated electorates ruling the country with cases pending against them - this is simply an unfair electorate at power . We have seen the colors of democracy & the whims and fancies of the political leaders who come at power. Now, we all need to see the change & lets not take examples from the past in stating that dictators are bad . Dictatorship is not all about a slave and ruler agreement , with changing time , we all have seen the youth of the country standing for the rights. Hence choosing a leader not a dictator would be a good solution.
SCREENSHOTS
Refrences:http://www.indiabix.com/group-discussion/what-india-needs-is-a-dictatorship/ http://www.careerride.com/GD-India-needs-strong-dictator.aspx http://www.indiastudychannel.com/forum/77169-Do-you-think-that-India-needsdictatorship.aspx http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070221085803AA4hWNm
CONTENTS • Introduction to democracy • Social Values in democracy • Challenges to democracy • India since independence • Introduction to dictator • Does India need a dictatorship setup? • Which setup is pertinent for India? • Conclusion • Screenshots • Refrences
Introduction-Democracy
Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion. In practise, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy. Although no country has ever granted all its citizens (i.e. including minors) the vote, most countries today hold regular elections based on egalitarian principles, at least in theory. The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy in which the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level and on exceptions on national level in many countries, though these systems coexist with representative assemblies. Elements considered essential to democracy include freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them. The term "democracy" is often used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
Democracy is often confused with the republic form of government. In some definitions of "republic," a republic is a form of democracy. Other definitions make "republic" a separate, unrelated term.
Definition
While there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times.These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. According to some theories of democracy, popular sovereignty is the founding principle of such a system.However, the democratic principle has also been expressed as "the freedom to call something into being which did not exist before, which was not given… and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known."[12] This type of freedom, which is connected to human "natality," or the capacity to begin anew, sees democracy as "not only a political system… [but] an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (whilst maintaining judicial independence). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are applicable to private organizations and other groups as well.
Forms Of Democracy
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others .However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy are all major examples of attempts at a form of government that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens. The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.
Representative Democracy Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic.[55] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of
representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
Parliamentary Democracy
Parliamentary Democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people. Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal.In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. Presidential Democracy Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. By being elected by the people, the president can say that he is the choice of the people and for the people. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. Combining head of state and head of government makes the president not only the face of the people but as the head of policy as well.The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature.
While the president holds most of the executive powers, he cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily than they could remove him from office. This increases separation of powers. This can also create discord between the president and the legislature if they are of separate parties, allowing one to block the other. This type of democracy is not common around the world today due to the conflicts to which it can lead, but most countries in the Americas, including the USA, use this system. Semi-presidential A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. This form of democracy is even less common than a presidential system. This system has both a prime minister with no fixed term and a president with a fixed term. Depending on the country, the separation of powers between the prime minister and president varies. In one instance, the president can hold more power than the prime minister, with the prime minister accountable to both the legislature and president. On the other hand, the prime minister can hold more power than the president. The president and prime minister share power, while the president holds powers separate from those of the legislature.The president holds the role of commander in chief, controls foreign policy, and is head of state ("the face of the people"). The prime minister is expected to formulate the Presidents policies into legislature.The prime minister is the head of government and as such he is expected to formulate the policies of the party that won the election into legislature. This type of government can also create issues over who holds what responsibilities. Constitutional Democracy A Constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties). In a constitutional democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to
emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere. Direct Democracy Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: 1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise. Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. Inclusive democracy Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e.self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the
journal Democracy & Nature' and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy.The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates. Consensus Democracy Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule. Cosmopolitan Democracy Democracy is not only a political system… It is an ideal, an aspiration, really, intimately connected to and dependent upon a picture of what it is to be human—of what it is a human should be to be fully human. Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy , is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition,
cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them. According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organizations, e.g. the United Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.
SOCIAL VALUES IN DEMOCRACY “Freedom” here is not used in the narrower liberal sense of formal freedom under the law or the free-for-all of economic markets, but rather means the concrete legal, social, economic, cultural and political conditions that enable citizens to live a self-determined life; “Equality” does not just mean equality before the law, but also the concrete legal, social, economic, cultural and political conditions that give all citizens equal chances to participate and equal opportunities in life; A fraternity is an organized society of men associated together in an environment of companionship and brotherhood; dedicated to the intellectual, physical, and social development of its members. Fundamental Rights' is a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harThese rights universally apply to all citizens, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, color or Gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain restrictionsmony as citizens of India.
•
Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2][3]Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality .Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls.
•
Challenges to Democracy
The survival of Indian democracy for well over half a century deprives the country's diversities, is in many ways a remarkable achievement. However, no one can deny that the country's contemporary socio-economic and political problems are complex. There are a number of serious challenges that need to be met in the years ahead.
•
Divisive tendenciesIn a country of over a billion people, Indian nationalism has for long survived the divisive tendencies of caste, crass, religion and languages. But recent past growing violence in the name of religion and sub nationalism has posed a great threat to the smooth functioning democracy in India.
•
ExtremismThere is an organized attempt by forces inimical to freedom and peace in our region to destroy Indian democracy by striking at the every roots of our nationhood. Over a period of time there has been a systematic effort to spread communal disharmony and conflict in India
•
UnemploymentThe employment growth in organized sector, public and private combined has declined during the period between and 2006 and the situation has got aggravated during the last year due to the global financial crisis.
•
TerrorismThe neighbouring countries are not liking our grown and progress and therefore, we are facing challenge of terrorism from the side of our neighbour. Pakistan started war in 1947 itself when it occupied one third of Kashmir without our sanction and that part is still with iThis terrorism started from Kashmir and they could identify people who could help them and now this Pakistani terrorism is available throughout in India. We have seen that the terrorists had targetted Red Fort and even they attacked Parliament of India too.t.
•
RegionalismThis is the main weakness of Indian democracy today. A large part of the Indian politics has been reduced to 'Identity politics, be it caste, religious or regional identities, ~ and this brings divisive forces to play.
•
IlliteracyLiteracy in India, says UNESCO, is an indispensable means for effective social and economic participation, contributing to human development and poverty India is one of the countries (along with the Arab states and sub-Saharan Africa) where the literacy levels are still below the threshold level of75% hut gigantic efforts a on to achieve that level. Without literate and well inform 'Citizens, no democracy can be participative in the true sense.
•
Corruption & nepotismThis is another major problem in our country today. Many of us have simply accepted it as sad reality. But unless we are able to fight corruption, the benefits of development can never be shared equitably and democratically.
INDIA since independenceIndia was a British colony. It earned its independence from the British on 15/08/1947. Day before that Pakistan which was created as a result of partition of British India was established and flanked on two sides of India: West Pakistan which is called today Pakistan, and east Pakistan, now an independent state called Bangladesh. After its independence, the political leaders of India adopted the liberal democratic system for the
country. Since its independence, India has transformed a lot. When India attained independence in 1947, its population was around 400 million people. Now there are billion people in India. India is the largest democracy in the world. It has the biggest number of people with franchise rights and the largest number of political parties, which take part in election campaign. Before its independence, India was never a single country but a bunch of different entities. Many predicted that India, because of diversities in its cultures, religion, languages, castes, manners, local histories, nationalities and identities, would not survive as a single democratic country, but would break up into smaller countries. Since independence, India had many political problems. During independence the most burning issues were the riots between the Hindus and Muslims while the Sikhs were siding with Hindus. Another issue was convincing the Princely states not to declare independence or join Pakistan but to join the Indian Union. India also had a few wars with its neighbors on border issues. India also has many internal problems. Different communities with different identities regional, language, caste, religion - demanded different rights for their communities. Some communities demanded more autonomy for their cultures within the Indian states. Others demanded autonomous states within the Indian Union, while the others demanded to be independent from India. With all its problems India survives as a single state with democratic character. Before independence our country was at the mercy of her foreign rulers. They did whatever they liked for the good of their own country. After independence much has been done to improve the condition of the masses. Some of the important achievements of free India made during the last fifty years are as follows. In the economic field, unprecedented progress has been made. Our five year plans have been successfully completed. Many Multipurpose projects have been taken in hand. Bhakra Nagal, Hirakud and Damodur valley projects have been completed. Many new factories have been started. Sindri Fertilizers Factory, Haldia Fertilizer Complex, Barauni and Guna Fertilizer Factory etc., are producing chemical fertilizers. Important Steel plants are fulfilling our requirements of steel. The per capita income has been raised. Our exports have been increasing in different
spheres. The difficult food problem has been solved. To-day there is enough food for all. Power –generation has also been increased several folds. A net-work of ordinance factories has been established and most sophisticated weapons for the defense of the country are being produced. In 1989, India successfully fired Agni, a long range missile. Since then ‘Akash’ surface to air long range missile, ‘Trishul’, ‘Nag’ and recently ‘Prithivi’ surface to surface short range missile have been launched. This shows further advance in the growth of the country’s science and technology. Rapid advances have been made in the field of electronics and comprehensive program of computerization is also under way. Thus gradually, but steadily, we are achieving self-sufficiency and stability in the economic field.Free India has also made rapid advance in the field of science and technology. Atomic energy has been successfully used for power generation. India successfully conducted under ground atomic tests for peaceful purposes. Now India is nuclear power nation. The launching of “Aryabhatta”, “Rohini”, “Apple” INSAT-1 and INSAT-1(D) satellites marks the entry of India in to the space age. Since then many more multi-purpose satellites have been sent in to outer space. India Space Organization had completed four launchers of the Satellite Launch Vehicle-3(SLV-3) for of Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicles (ASLV) and two developmental PSLV. With this India became the fifth nation in the world capable of launching 1000 kg satellite in its intended orbit. Now it is ready to enter the GSLV programme through which India will not only have vastly improved telecommunication capability, but also satellite monitoring capabilities which will be of great value of our security. Revolutionary changes have also been brought about in the political field. Our country is now sovereign Democratic Republic. All citizens have equal rights in the eyes of law, irrespective of their caste, creed, sex and religion. To bring democracy to the villages, Panchayats have been established and Panchayati Raj has become a reality. The launching of the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna is another revolutionary step to improve the conditions of rural poor. There is a general awakening among the people. They have begun to understand their rights and duties. We may find men in the street discussing various political problems with great interest. Thus, we are enjoying the fruits of freedom. We may hold our heads high due to the success of foreign policy, which has raised the prestige of the country.
Achievements in the social sphere are also clearly visible. The Zamindari system has been abolished. The tiller of the land is now its owner. Untouchability is a legal offence today. To drive out the demon of drink from society, prohibition has been introduced. Socialistic pattern of society is the aim towards which our country is making rapid progress. To reduce the inequalities in the industrial field many industries have been nationalized. To bring about uniformity in weights and measures, the metric system has been introduced. Prostitution, in any form has been made legal offense. These achievements are of great social significance. Social security schemes have been introduced in some big industrial towns. The government is busy in clearing slums and constructing new houses for the industrial workers and the weaker sections of society. Lakhs of refugees came to India first from Pakistan, then from Bangladesh, and more recently from Ceylon. But India has successfully solved the refugee problem. This is a mighty achievement. So it becomes clear that no aspect of life has been left untouched. India has successfully followed the policy of noon alignment. As a result of India’s efforts, the non-alignment movement has become a force in the world affairs. India’s voice now carries weight in international forums. Important laurel won by India recently is the obtaining of the sole right for the exploration of a very large area of the Indian Ocean for its mineral wealth. Similarly, India has established its base in the Antarctica for exploration and research in the difficult region. But this long list of free India’s achievements should not make us proud. We should not feel satisfied by looking at our achievements. We should keep in mind the problems which are yet to be solved. The masses of country are still poor and backward. Many social evils still prevail. Corruption is widespread. Terrorism is raising its ugly head in several arts of the country. The balance of payment position is difficult and threat sanctions are looming large. To face various economic problems a comprehensive programme of economic reforms has been undertaken. Economic polices have been liberalized, a number of controls have been removed, and multinationals have now been allowed to operate freely in the country.
Private enterprise has also been encouraged, and Indian capitalists have been invited on a large scale to set up industries in various field. Above all the appeal of democracy has depended over the years. This style of governance has neatly fitted the lifestyle of a majority of Indians. Democracy now cuts across the parties, educational levels, classes, castes, religions, and gender and ethnics divisions. Indeed India democracy today despite all its institutional problems is stronger in the minds of people then it ever was. The social and territorial spread of legitimacy has survived even the sharp decline in the peoples trust in politicians in recent years.However with faith in our leaders and our capacity for works, we are sure to overcome our present powerful nation of the world. difficulties. The present difficulties should not discourage us. Free India is destined to become a
Introduction-Dictator
A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes, but not always, with military control or bribes) but without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch. When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency . Like the term "tyrant" (which was originally a respectable Ancient Greek title), and to a lesser degree "autocrat", "dictator" came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.
In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality. The term "dictator" is comparable to, but not synonymous with, the ancient concept of a tyrant; initially "tyrant", like "dictator", did not carry negative connotations. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators. They may hold left or right-wing views, or can even be apolitical. Some examples of leaders widely viewed as dictators include Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Paul Kagame, Francisco Franco, Muammar Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Yoweri Museveni, Alexander Lukashenko, Ferdinand Marcos, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Robert Mugabe, Benito Mussolini, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Ruhollah Khomeini Suharto, Mao Zedong, and Meles Zenawi. INDIRA GANDHI-THE INDIAN DICTATOR? June 25th, 1975 was the day that Indira Gandhi revealed that within her beats the heart of a ruthless dictator. On the 35th anniversary of that day, it is appropriate to remember that the Congress party brought authoritarian rule to India for the first time after independence. More accurately, Indira Gandhi brought dictatorship to the land. What matters today is that the descendants of Indira Gandhi are becoming increasingly powerful and could very well revert to dictatorial ways. Let’s ponder that for a bit. I have nothing per se against dictators. In small or large measures, organizations and institutions have people at the top who make decisions and enforce their dictates either through a force or through persuasion. There’s nothing in a flawed democratic setup that
recommends it over the rule of an enlightened dictator. Mrs Gandhi’s dictatorship is not the kind that recommends itself to me. I was not thrilled by the dictatorship of the original Mrs Gandhi. I am even less thrilled by the dictatorship of the Italian Mrs Gandhi. For now, she’s just dictating to her lackeys such as Manmohan Singh and Pratibha Patil, and the party she heads. But if the Congress ever gets a majority in the parliament, we can expect a full-blown dictatorship for India. Italy gave the world fascism. Mussolini was an Italian. Worth keeping in mind. But we should pause here to remember that dictators and dictatorships are endogenous, not exogenous, to the population. In an introduction to Étienne de La Boétie’s Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (1576), Murray Rothbart writes that the fundamental insight was . . . that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure. Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant their obedience by their own consent. India needs enlightened leaders, whether dictators or democrats. But it has been getting stupid leaders — dictators and “democrats” — not because of some unfortunate accident but because the population at large is not “enlightened.” For India to get decent leadership, Indians have to change. At a minimum, Indians have to stop being impressed by charlatans and crooks. Indians have to demonstrate that they can take the long view, that they are not willing to vote criminals into office.
Indians have granted “their obedience by their own consent” to dictators for a long while. The most recent in living memory is Mrs Indira Gandhi. Before that it was to their British overlords. Before that to the Islamic invaders. It goes into remote antiquity perhaps. On the 35th anniversary of Mrs Gandhi’s revelation of her true nature as a dictator, it is absolutely important that we remind ourselves that it is high time Indians gave up voluntary servitude. Garibaldi as a positive dictator Still, even in the 19th Century, the term "Dictator" did not always have negative connotations. For example, the Italian revolutionary Garibaldi, during his famous Expedition of the Thousand in 1860, proclaimed himself "Dictator of Sicily", which did not prevent him from being extremely popular in Italian and international public opinion. His usage of the term was clearly derived from the original Roman sense - i.e., a person taking power for a limited time in order to deal with an emergency (in this case, the need to unite Italy) and with the task done Garibaldi handed over power to the government of Victor Emmanuel II of Italy. Garibaldi's case was, however, an exception. In general, the term "dictator" came to be a negative term, not a title used by rulers to call themselves but a term used by the foes of an oppressive ruler. Such was the case with Maximillien Robespierre, whose supporters knew him as "The Incorruptible", while his opponents called him "dictateur sanguinaire", French for "bloodthirsty dictator". The following is a list of national leaders (heads of state and/or heads of government) commonly regarded as modern dictators. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:
•
is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state where the position is not formally hereditary; governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;
•
•
commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état, or resorts to them to stay in power; may develop a cult of personality; may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.
• •
Some so-called "benevolent dictators" may be viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil". The modern usage of the term 'dictator' developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in republics, so traditional monarchs are not usually described as dictators in historical commentary. Also excluded from this list are those who held absolute power during national emergencies, but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Otherwise those included have been widely cited by historians or described by the media as dictators. Any controversy surrounding such characterisation is mentioned in the notes.
Some Examples of Dictators with there time of Rule and end of Rule
Country Name
Ayub Khan Pakistan Yahya Khan Pakistan Muhammad ZiaPakistan ul-Haq Maumoon Abdul Maldives Gayoom Hossain Bangladesh
Came to power
1958 by coup 1969 1978 1978 1982 by coup
Lost power
1969 1971 1988 2008 1990
Country Name
Mohammad Ershad Pervez Musharraf Pakistan
Came to power
Lost power
1999 by coup
2008
DOES INDIA NEED A DICTATORSHIP SETUP??
India is a democratic country which has done well to make sure that we do not fall backwards on the wheel of time. With the advancement of science we have progressed after our independence and now the world looks upon us as a country to look at. India had the sense to follow the democratic set up of leadership after our independence while many countries went other paths. North Korea in fact have a dictator ship true even now, Iraq had a dictator in Saddham Hussain until Americans over threw him. But our very neighbor china has gone behind the communist setup.
The question here is does India need a dictatorship? That would mean that the present system followed by India is faulty. Well let us what all are the defects that are plaguing the democratic setup of India. Bureaucracy Indian bureaucracy is definitely one of the slowest, the decision making power in the country has too many layers which make it impossible to get a decision done quickly. There are many case still pending in Indian judicial system that can be said to be dating back to around 15 years. Hence what happens is the fast development of the country is delayed. Corruption Corrupting officers increases more in the democratic setup due to the slowness in decision making, the officers who are corrupting are well aware that no action will be taken against them strongly an speedily in such a setup. In many cases these disadvantages have yelled to anarchy like chapplas being thrown at ministers and wide spread protests in the country. India have witnessed such uprisings many times. Recently the Anna Hazare episode where the whole country emerged to take reigns against the government is an example of how the people agitations can be caused by the corruption and slowness into democratic forms of government.
Advantages of Dictatorship Government Dictatorship can be defined as a form of government in which the power is centralized. It either lies with a single person or a small group of people. The general population has no say in the functioning of the government. The people do not have any choice with regards
to by whom or how their country will be run. In a dictatorship form of government, the people are expected to do, whatever is decided for them by the dictator. China, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Cuba, among many others, follow dictatorship form of government. Now that we know what is dictatorship, let us try to understand what are the advantages of dictatorship. Stable Government As in a dictatorship, the decision making lies with only one person and others do not have any say in the working of the government, it offers a kind of stability to the country. Problems such as frequent elections, as in the case of democracy, or a disruption of peace due to political factions, do not arise in a dictatorship. Less Room for Corruption Another of the dictatorship advantages is that a dictator is very stringent with regards to the rules, regulations, penalties, punishments and rewards. This makes the people working under him less liable to corruption. Most Efficient During Emergencies When a country faces any kind of emergency situation such as a war or a health epidemic, a dictatorship government can prove to be the most efficient one. The reason being that all the decisions are taken by one person, so there is no ambiguity with regards to the plan of action as well as individual responsibilities that are fixed to cope with the emergency situation. So, one of the main advantages of dictatorship over democracy is that it is better equipped to face emergencies. Lesser Crime Rate Most of the dictatorship governments are police states. So, in a way there is low crime rate under such regimes. Another reason for a better law and order situation in these states is that various laws are passed immediately, without any discussion or waiting for the public opinion on them. This leads to better control over crimes too. "Things Happen" Quickly In a dictatorship form of government, all things, whether related to governance or
businesses or anything else, happen much quicker than in other types of government. The reason for this is the same i.e. decision making lies with a single person. These are some of the advantages of dictatorship. Although, for these advantages to translate into real life, a dictator needs to be self less, benevolent, well experienced and intelligent. As a dictator has unlimited power, if he does not possess these qualities, the disadvantages of dictatorship, such as oppression of people, no freedom of choice for the people, accumulation of wealth in a few hands, loss of civil rights, flawed decision making, etc. can lead the country toward a wrong path. Looking at the stakes associated with a dictatorship form of government, many countries under such a regime are considering becoming democracies, which is a form of government for the people, of the people and by the people. Today, looking at the progress democracies such as America and India are making, democracy is considered the best form of governance. Considering the advantages this type of government will give, the lies far serious problems with dictator hip model of formation of government. But this would mean that the country would run on the whims and fancies of a singular man who will try his best to do everything to make sure he runs in full luxury. He can run the country in whatever manner he likes and further the rights of the citizens to protest against him will be less. Any protests will be dealt with strong power and the press freedom too will be hampered. We have seen many instances where the dictators have used their powers particularly for accumulating the wealth and live luxury not caring anything about the life of the people in the country. There also arises the problem of over spending of public resources.If I am asked to choose between the democratic setup and dictatorship, I would definitely go after the democratic setup where the rights and life of people are valued. The speed of progress may be slow but it si sure no way top trade for a life with dignity. here are many disadvantages of dictatorship. The main one being loss of freedom. In a dictatorship power is concentrated into one persons hands and what they say goes. The
main problem with this is it is almost always abused. A prime example is Hitler that alone says why dictatorships aren't what's up and we do not want to go in that direction.
DISADVANTAGES: 1) People are afforded little or no individual liberty. Civil rights are trampled on. 2) A dictator’s policies suit his/her own needs. Needs of the people may be neglected. 3) Decision making has a narrow base - can be flawed, wrong, dangerous, and not fully supported by the people. 4) Over spending of the public resources. 5) India is the 2nd largest country in the world, which will not be able to control or manage under a dictatorship setup 6) It may lead to unrest and conflict among people and politicians. 7) Stability of a nation closely relate to its foreign policy. A dictatorship rule can’t maintain these policies
Which Setup Is Pertinent For India?
•
India is a democratic country which has done well to make sure that we do not fall backwards on the wheel of time. With the advancement of science we have progressed after our independence and now the world looks upon us as a country to look at.
•
India being a strong democratic country doesn’t really need a dictator. It may just lead to disruption.
•
India is a big country. People live in harmony and are known for their unity. A dictator may not be able to maintain this. Few people may again misunderstand dictatorship and may think it defies the purpose of freedom.
•
Dictatorship may bring very short term changes. A country needs a strong government. Dictatorship may introduce communal differences depending on the community of the dictator.
• •
Human rights can be certainly bypassed. It may lead to disorganization and malfunctioning of the law and order system of the country.
CONCLUSION:: We all were taught that Dictatorship is bad and democracy is good, self- government is good. But, we cannot say that self government is a substitute for a good government. India is a nation where there are starvation deaths happening in routine in the Ganjam District of Orissa. And on the other hand,every year there are grains worth crores being rotten or eaten by rats. why can't these grains be given to those poor people who die every day because of starvation ?
whom should we blame this for ? The person who stands between not making things happening is a politician . Corruption starts from a politician and it starts from the head of his power to the tail . Hence ,in a way INDIA DEMANDS A BENEVOLENT LEADER, NOT A DICTATOR ! A leader who believes in making things right & fair . Development, foreign policies, trade relations, education, corruption free nation should be the commitment he should work towards. Educated electorates ruling the country with cases pending against them - this is simply an unfair electorate at power . We have seen the colors of democracy & the whims and fancies of the political leaders who come at power. Now, we all need to see the change & lets not take examples from the past in stating that dictators are bad . Dictatorship is not all about a slave and ruler agreement , with changing time , we all have seen the youth of the country standing for the rights. Hence choosing a leader not a dictator would be a good solution.
SCREENSHOTS
Refrences:http://www.indiabix.com/group-discussion/what-india-needs-is-a-dictatorship/ http://www.careerride.com/GD-India-needs-strong-dictator.aspx http://www.indiastudychannel.com/forum/77169-Do-you-think-that-India-needsdictatorship.aspx http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070221085803AA4hWNm
