Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!ravi From: ravi@crystal.UUCP Newsgroups: net.nlang.india Subject: Re: Political maturity of the masses Message-ID: <425@crystal.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 01:04:44 EST Article-I.D.: crystal.425 Posted: Tue Mar 19 01:04:44 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:21:52 EST References: <2458@hplabsc.UUCP> <173@sbcs.UUCP> <413@crystal.UUCP> <174@sbcs.UUCP> <420@crystal.UUCP> <178@sbcs.UUCP> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 91 > Assume that in an election, the voter's choice is based on his perception > of the effect, on his well-being, of the electoral victory of the various > candidates. Then, I take the phrase "political maturity" to be indicative > of the extent to which this perception tallies with reality. A voter can only go by what his perceptions of a candidate are. (People here voted for Reagan based on what their perceptions of him didn't they?) If you are saying that the Indian voter is not as SOPHISTICATED as the voter here (in the sense of the humourous posting by Sanjaya), then my answer would be that sophistication of that sort is rather irrelevent: The Indian voter is certainly as ASTUTE as any other in the world. I do believe that he/she has a good feeling for what is needed, and given the right choice of candidates, the electorate in India is just as capable of making the correct decision as any other in the world. > It's a fact that in Indian politics, factors like religion, caste and > language play a very important role (what are the chances, do you think, of > a Bengali MP being elected from Assam?). History and experience teaches us that except in an entirely homogeneous population, differences such as these do influence decisions. Bigotry and parochialism are not the prerogative of any one population. Look at the problems between the French- and English-speakers in Canada. The point has also been made during this discussion that even in the USA (where the electorate is very literate and relatively homogeneous), many issues having nothing to do with a candidate's competence (issues like whether the presidential candidate is a black or the running-mate is a southerner, or a woman) turn out to be very important. To ask the same question you asked above, what do you think are the chances of someone who is Buddhist (or Jewish) being elected as president of the USA? I think the complaint here is simpy that India is not Utopia. That shouldn't bother you: No place is (remember: Ou = no, Topos = place?). > situations. Therefore, when a person votes for a candidate because the > candidate belongs to a particular caste, speaks a particular language, > practises a particular religion, or prefers spaghetti to lasagna, rather > than his attitudes, stands on specific issues of concern to the electorate > and capacity to better their quality of life, he makes a choice based on > perceptions that may not accurately reflect reality. For this reason, I > feel that the Indian voter is politically immature. I hope you are not implying that all (or even most) Indian voters vote based on such criteria. There are certainly voters all over the world who will cast their ballots in favour of someone for reasons that we might consider suspect. Every system (as has been repeatedly pointed out) has its weaknesses. So if your argument is that the Indian system has some too, we are all in agreement. But why make the drawbacks the centre of all attention: It not only misrepresents the realities of Indian democracy, it also weakens the thrust of your own argument. > however wonderful, may not be reflective of reality. I feel, rather, that > politicians should have to work their way up, demonstrating competence and > the ability to deliver at lower levels (district, state) before being sent > up to the national arena. I don't think anyone will dispute that; unfortunately, that is never how politics (or anything else, for that matter) works. Image and personality turn out to be as important as any other factor (which is why, for instance, candidates interviewing even for purely research-type jobs wear suits). In politics, image can be everything. Just see how far Gary Hart got by cultivating a Kennedy-like image. And don't tell me about demonstrating competence: A very sophisticated and literate electorate just re-elected an actor who (as president!) thought he could recall nuclear missiles after ordering them on their way! That may not be how politics ought to work, but that's simply the way it does. > maturity" refers to. Ravi says that by criticizing the maturity of our > voters, "we laugh at ourselves, and call the voting population idiots!". I > respectfully submit that this criticism is in no way meant to demean or > ridicule; rather, it is meant as an attempt to pinpoint weaknesses that > we can then try to set about rectifying. Self-criticism can be very constructive, and one must cultivate a capacity for meaningful self-criticism. And the problems with Indian democracy may be very frustrating to us because we perceive ourselves as being above the level of thinking that is responsible for the problems. We are also embarrassed by them. I therefore suspect that our reactions are often coloured by a subtler emotion: We are often angry at India for causing us this embarrassment. We seek to dissociate ourselves from this embarrassment by a simple and deliberate expedient: We join those who we think are laughing at us, point our finger at others and pretend to laugh with those we perceive as laughing at us. Indeed, I suspect that this attitude arises from a subtle undermining of our self-esteem -- yet another legacy of our colonial heritage! That was the significance of what I said in my earlier posting about the Americans having a positive attitude (B-grade actor being president seen as renewal of the promise of opportunity). Americans realize too, that their system has its drawbacks. But they are not unreasonably, unforgivingly critical of it. A positive self-image is very important. Let us try to cultivate one too!