We're about a week away from the start of India's elections. It's going to be a month-long process of competing for 543 seats in India's Parliament, the Lok Sabha- scattered across 35 states and territories, most of whom far outstrip California in terms of population alone. It takes 6.1 million police and civil personnel to get it done- there are 828,804 polling stations and 1,368,430 electronic voting machines-- and here's the kicker: 1,055 political parties. (Stats from the BBC)
It terms of a simple exercise in basic political freedom, its inspirational. The fact that a country this big has such a vibrant- some would say chaotic political system is incredible and to me, in a shining example of the sheer possibilities of human potential. More than that though, it's India itself that matters. Being a political science major, you take class after class where you hear predictions and prognostications about which country will claim the mantle of 'new superpower' in the 21st Century. Conventional wisdom in Political Science likes to say China- and by and large, apart from the few theorists that predict the collapse of China, just to be contrary, that's where the betting money is.
I, on the other hand, have been anything but conventional during my journey through political science. I don't put all my money on China rising to the position of the new superpower- and I'll tell you why: yes, China will be incredibly important in the next century, but any predictions are predictions with a * attached to them. China's economic growth is explosive, but anything less than 8% annual growth is considered a slow year for them currently. My question is this: what happens when China experiences negative growth? The entire justification for the continued rule of the Communist Party is continued economic growth- the real test for China is what happens when their economy doesn't grow. If they can come through that unscathed, then they might well be the real deal.
But until they pass that test, my money is on India. India is being quietly and continually overlooked in the tiresome debate about who could possibly rise to be the next superpower- and I put more faith in India than China exactly because any economic or political reforms have to be put through the democratic process, messy and chaotic as it is in India. That to me, means that the process of negotiation and compromise makes their reforms more likely to gain wide acceptance across the political spectrum and thus have a longer shelf life.
Maybe that's crap, but to me China has a big test that it's yet to pass, but India can keep slowly but surely striding forward towards economic prosperity and increasing political power. I'm hoping too, that there's a shift coming in American policy-making towards South Asia. Since 1948, the United States has been pro-Pakistan and less than friendly towards India. Historically speaking, it was Nehru's founding of the Non-Aligned Movement at the Bandung Conference that lead to the split more than anything else. The United States viewed the NAM as being pro-communist and held India at arm's length throughout the Cold War.
That needs to change. India will be incredibly important throughout the next century, which is why I want to spend the next month dissecting the 2009 Elections, figuring out who's who, what's what and just how The Greatest Show on Earth works.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment