This is what i love most about american democracy:Leaders don't have to be Gandhi or Bhutto

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/258700.html Within a week, we have witnessed two different versions of democracy. In Pakistan, the leadership of a “democratic†party is decided based on a will (wills, apparently, are not just for properties; or is a political party just family property?) and a 19-year-old youth alters his surname in order to nominally take charge. In a mid-western state in the US, two individuals without any inheritance (financial or otherwise), without any aristocratic connections, emerged as front-runners for the leadership of two of the oldest political parties in the oldest continuous constitutional republic in the world. I refer of course to the “surprising†emergence of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee. In India and our immediate neighbourhood, we have regressed rather than evolve constructively. The beginning of the end of inner-party democracy in the Congress must squarely be placed as Mahatma Gandhi’s doing. When Subhash Chandra Bose defeated the Mahatma’s candidate, Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya, in a fairly fought election for the Tripuri session, Bose was simply “not allowed†to operate and he subsequently resigned. :two_thumbs_up: It was clear to all observers that only Gandhi’s nominee could lead the Congress irrespective of the views of the rank and file party members. The Congress party has an unelected body known as the “High Commandâ€, which appoints state leaders and chooses MP/MLA candidates. Other parties now imitate the Congress. The expression ‘High Command’ was used in Germany not so long ago by a very undemocratic dispensation. For parties nominally committed to democratic principles to routinely use this expression is very curious indeed. One of the most interesting features of the primaries is that you do not have to be a party activist to vote. In many states, you don’t even have to be a party member. The result is that ordinary citizens who are too busy to be involved in the day-to-day running of parties can have a say in the selection of the candidate that a political party finally puts up. I believe the time has come for us to try a similar experiment in India. In the current situation none of us feels that we have sufficient impact on the choices presented to us and therefore on the political process. Irrespective of whether I am an active member of a party or not, if I can have a say in the choice of the MLA or MP candidate for my constituency, I will view the final ballot paper not as a choice between unknown externally imposed representatives of familiar symbols, but as an expression of confidence in one or other person in whose candidacy I had a role to play. At one stroke, potential candidates will start paying attention to our concerns and not only to the party supremos in Delhi or the state capitals.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Apparently our Gandhiji started it all the tradition of aristocracy in our present day political system. How ironic someone who was a mass leader could not take it when masses delivered a verdict which he didn't like. (1) First Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose gets grounded despite trumping Gandhi's candidate Sitaramaiya (2) Second Nehru is thrust upon the country despite not even single person in CWCendorsing his candidature for PM therby grounding popular candidate Sardaar Patel.

[kumble_rocks]

Apparently our Gandhiji started it all the tradition of aristocracy in our present day political system.

Your above statement has legal ramifications . So watch what you type !

[Guest dada_rocks]

Scores of books pub;lished India have put that sentiment words on rcords.. So much for legal ramification levae law for those who can think...Jesus I know I have called your bluff that doesn't mean u turn into a sore loser and vomit in every thread.. Stick to the topic PS: When one has nothign to contribute in politcs thread there is fun section too:D

[kumble_rocks]

Scores of books pub;lished India have put that sentiment words on rcords.. So much for legal ramification levae law for those who can think...Jesus I know I have called your bluff that doesn't mean u turn into a sore loser and vomit in every thread.. Stick to the topic PS: When one has nothign to contribute in politcs thread there is fun section too:D

Sore loser ?? , Fool , you are the resident bigot ...

[Guest dada_rocks]

whatever u illiterate ignorant buffon.. I have showed u again u were talking as usual from the wrong end.. Author has said the same thing buffoon and it's india based news paper :finger:.. ....rest assured he is not going to jail.. Jesus just because I called u death-seekers bluff doesn't mean u have to vomit everywhere..

[kumble_rocks]

whatever u illiterate ignorant buffon.. I have showed u again u were talking as usual from the wrong end.. Author has said the same thing buffoon and it's india based news paper :finger:.. ....rest assured he is not going to jail.. Jesus just because I called u death-seekers bluff doesn't mean u have to vomit everywhere..

:hysterical::hysterical: Anyways , fool , I have no intention of vomiting in the threads created by bigoted Jacka$$ who supports Gujarat Genocide ..

[Lurker]

I find this article very strange. What exactly is the author trying to say here is beyond me. He starts with Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama and their win in primaries. Now what has that to do with Mahatma Gandhi really?? The selection of Huckabee and Obama is hardly a measure of success of democracy in USA. In fact I would downright challenge the author, and specially you DR, if you can prove me that Iowa primary(or Caucus as it is called) is essentially a good democratic process! By all means it is a lengthy, time-taking and 200 year old policy that is done in a state that almost every other state in USA finds discriminatory. Not to mention that within the last decade of so USA democracy took a major hit when the man with most votes did NOT become the President. If that was not a botch on democracy what is? It is also interesting to realize that in an article largely about US Presidential election DR finds the attack on Gandhi the highlight! It gives a good knowledge of you, does it not DR...not that it comes as a surprise mind you. xxx

[kumble_rocks]

Apparently our Gandhiji started it all the tradition of aristocracy in our present day political system. How ironic someone who was a mass leader could not take it when masses delivered a verdict which he didn't like. (1) First Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose gets grounded despite trumping Gandhi's candidate Sitaramaiya (2) Second Nehru is thrust upon the country despite not even single person in CWCendorsing his candidature for PM therby grounding popular candidate Sardaar Patel.

All right DR , Why don't you answer this simple question , if Gandhi was into tradition of aristocracy and what not , how come his children and grandchildren missed the boat ? Surely they would have been promoted by him in the political world based on his presumed tradition of aristocracy as you and the author claim ...

[Guest dada_rocks]

I find this article very strange. What exactly is the author trying to say here is beyond me. He starts with Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama and their win in primaries. Now what has that to do with Mahatma Gandhi really?? The selection of Huckabee and Obama is hardly a measure of success of democracy in USA. In fact I would downright challenge the author, and specially you DR, if you can prove me that Iowa primary(or Caucus as it is called) is essentially a good democratic process! By all means it is a lengthy, time-taking and 200 year old policy that is done in a state that almost every other state in USA finds discriminatory. Not to mention that within the last decade of so USA democracy took a major hit when the man with most votes did NOT become the President. If that was not a botch on democracy what is? It is also interesting to realize that in an article largely about US Presidential election DR finds the attack on Gandhi the highlight! It gives a good knowledge of you, does it not DR...not that it comes as a surprise mind you. xxx

(1) For those who are not willing to close their eyes on Mahatama's gaffe there is obvious connection.. Connection by contrast you can say to put the point across author has made it obvious how one great leader wud not take no for ananswer if he loses in democratic process in another instance wud veto in favour of his blue-eyed boys going against popular CWCW voice. Whereas in USa for being nominated for the presidnetial seat all u need to do is win popular vote of primary no Gandhi is there to veto ur candidature even if you win it. Very very obvious connection I wonder why you fail to see this. (2)I don't know why would anyone find a democratic process where rank and file vote for their wud be president discrimnatory or anything. What are you suggesting soem Gandhiji nominating someone or some Bhutto leaving a will ..Seriously don;t know what kind of proof are u looking for if anything in face of oibvious upholding of democratic principle in intra-party democracy if u think it's wrong then u need to enlighten us why. Why a rank and file choosing their potential president is wrong wud love to know.. Particualrly an election which has thrown two commoners has to be given due respect as opposed to be talked in disparaging manner without any reason may I add. I know u are used to blue-blooded boys . (3)Again you are going into nitty gritty of what kind of democratic traditions american have when u invoke 2000 election result in place. Newsflash: George W Bush didn't change the rule of the game . Americans had decided to uphold the victor on the number of votes basis only at state level and from then on they had adhered to different gauge as far as winner was concerned. Very fact that in close to 200 years that was the only time some doubts were raised tells me there system works quite well. What is next people cliaming that only democracy acceptable is direct democracy in Swiss style or only democracy acceptable is westminister style british democracy. These are not the issues here. Point is they chose some system where people get to decide their leaders and stuck by it as opposed to what Gandhiji chose.. Before elction of PM there was no clause that if certain individual sulks in face of defeat Gandhiji is free to veto the result. That just happened because Gandhiji decided to without rhyme reason precdence or duly laid-out rules (4) Yes I found India specific issue because whole article talks in backdrop of sub-continental farce of intra-democracy and yes if anything that tells about me is that i love to think about India. I am proud of this fact. I know it's uncomfortable truth about gandhiji and u wud like it to be overlooked but I don't work that way.

[maggot_brain]

(1) For those who are not willing to close their eyes on Mahatama's gaffe there is obvious connection.. Connection by contrast you can say to put the point across author has made it obvious how one great leader wud not take no for ananswer if he loses in democratic process in another instance wud veto in favour of his blue-eyed boys going against popular CWCW voice. Whereas in USa for being nominated for the presidnetial seat all u need to do is win popular vote of primary no Gandhi is there to veto ur candidature even if you win it. Very very obvious connection I wonder why you fail to see this. (2)I don't know why would anyone find a democratic process where rank and file vote for their wud be president discrimnatory or anything. What are you suggesting soem Gandhiji nominating someone or some Bhutto leaving a will ..Seriously don;t know what kind of proof are u looking for if anything in face of oibvious upholding of democratic principle in intra-party democracy if u think it's wrong then u need to enlighten us why. Why a rank and file choosing their potential president is wrong wud love to know.. Particualrly an election which has thrown two commoners has to be given due respect as opposed to be talked in disparaging manner without any reason may I add. I know u are used to blue-blooded boys . (3)Again you are going into nitty gritty of what kind of democratic traditions american have when u invoke 2000 election result in place. Newsflash: George W Bush didn't change the rule of the game . Americans had decided to uphold the victor on the number of votes basis only at state level and from then on they had adhered to different gauge as far as winner was concerned. Very fact that in close to 200 years that was the only time some doubts were raised tells me there system works quite well. What is next people cliaming that only democracy acceptable is direct democracy in Swiss style or only democracy acceptable is westminister style british democracy. These are not the issues here. Point is they chose some system where people get to decide their leaders and stuck by it as opposed to what Gandhiji chose.. Before elction of PM there was no clause that if certain individual sulks in face of defeat Gandhiji is free to veto the result. That just happened because Gandhiji decided to without rhyme reason precdence or duly laid-out rules (4) Yes I found India specific issue because whole article talks in backdrop of sub-continental farce of intra-democracy and yes if anything that tells about me is that i love to think about India. I am proud of this fact. I know it's uncomfortable truth about gandhiji and u wud like it to be overlooked but I don't work that way.

Shows how much you know doesn't it? US citizens don't elect their president directly. They vote for the members of the electoral college. Al Gore won the most votes in the 2000 Presidential Election but didn't gain a majority in the electoral college. The US President is not directly elected, I'm no expert on US politics but I know that much at least. But, hey don't let a small matter of the lack of your own knowledge stop you from spouting crap.

[Lurker]

Whereas in USa for being nominated for the presidnetial seat all u need to do is win popular vote of primary no Gandhi is there to veto ur candidature even if you win it. Very very obvious connection I wonder why you fail to see this.

So what happened in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote? A good solid 60 years after Gandhi fiasco.

(2)I don't know why would anyone find a democratic process where rank and file vote for their wud be president discrimnatory or anything. What are you suggesting soem Gandhiji nominating someone or some Bhutto leaving a will

Those who know and understand the process of how Iowa caucus works will find it discriminatory. YOU dont find it discriminatory because you do not know about it, simple. I have no doubts in my mind you have no clue as to how the townhall going-in-the-corner caucus polling works. You are simply latching on to bash Gandhi brigade, atleast be honest about it.

(3)Again you are going into nitty gritty of what kind of democratic traditions american have when u invoke 2000 election result in place.

Democracy is simple - people with most votes win. Al Gore won most votes and didnt win. This is not nitty gritty but plain truth. Help me understand otherwise.

Newsflash: George W Bush didn't change the rule of the game . Americans had decided to uphold the victor on the number of votes basis only at state level and from then on they had adhered to different gauge as far as winner was concerned.

And where did I even mention George Bush? You are clueless and loud-mouth at that. My point was simply how USA democratic process is flawed where a person with most votes did not win.

Very fact that in close to 200 years that was the only time some doubts were raised tells me there system works quite well. What is next people cliaming that only democracy acceptable is direct democracy in Swiss style or only democracy acceptable is westminister style british democracy. These are not the issues here. Point is they chose some system where people get to decide their leaders and stuck by it as opposed to what Gandhiji chose.. Before elction of PM there was no clause that if certain individual sulks in face of defeat Gandhiji is free to veto the result. That just happened because Gandhiji decided to without rhyme reason precdence or duly laid-out rules

When and how? 1) Who won more votes in 2000 US election. 2) Who actually became the President? xxxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Brandishign the most basic knowldge as some kind of scholarship sounds cheap.. You are trying to change the debate.. Yes electoral college is directly elected yes or not. You are being admant that no this is not the right way and I have told you why you are wrong. In 200 years just one incident happened where popular vote and eventual elctoral college wasn't the same by few 100 votes and it does say their method of democracy works..OP doesn't pontificate on what kind of democracy is the best. OP just says be it electoral college or direct election fact of the matter is vote of rank and file is upheld . nobody need fear any gandhiji and be rest assured if they have chosen some leader he she will not be vetoed.. PS: U are trying to change the debate over what is the right form of democracy direct-election indirect election electoral college style or westminister style.. these are the details we are yet to establiush the fact that whatever the method of election whether some individual lilke Gandhi has right to veto the result or not. I know you can't bring yourself to answer these questions hence are verring on the tangent.. Electoral college doesn't get nominated by some Gandhi if that's the basis here then that is decided by popular vote. In this kind of democracy a no name like Obama or Huckabee with no blue-blood whatsoever has chance and these individuals need not even fear about presence of some holier-than-thou Gandhi.. Hail this kind of intra-party democracy..

[maggot_brain]

I'll give you a straight answer, unlike you I might add who is yet to answer the question I have posed to you. No Gandhi should not have vetoed Netaji's election and yes dynastic and nepotistic attitudes are a shameful aspect of Indian politics, specifically those of the Congress party.

[Lurker]

DR, Your post did not make any sense at all. Can you arrange it so as to answer me directly at the questions I raised?

[Guest dada_rocks]

So what happened in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote? A good solid 60 years after Gandhi fiasco. Those who know and understand the process of how Iowa caucus works will find it discriminatory. YOU dont find it discriminatory because you do not know about it, simple. I have no doubts in my mind you have no clue as to how the townhall going-in-the-corner caucus polling works. You are simply latching on to bash Gandhi brigade, atleast be honest about it. Democracy is simple - people with most votes win. Al Gore won most votes and didnt win. This is not nitty gritty but plain truth. Help me understand otherwise. And where did I even mention George Bush? You are clueless and loud-mouth at that. My point was simply how USA democratic process is flawed where a person with most votes did not win. When and how? 1) Who won more votes in 2000 US election. 2) Who actually became the President? xxxx

I guess I have already answered all these questions, Iyou refuse to see it.. Jesus let me put it down again (1) Americans decided they are a huge country and they will take the elctoral collage way. check (2) Electoral collage gets decided by popular vote check.. Electoral collage decided Bush wins so he won. you are being admant that no that's not the right way too bad americans think otherwise. they won't let u dicatet on their constitution point is they uphold the constitutin once they have laid it out. Where is the problem BTW u might have noticed we started with primary intra-party democracy and since u find thast part uncomfrotable to defend the great Gandhiji's behaviour u have raised this bogey of nitty gritty and details of their democracy. Fact of thet matter is whatever the rule of their democracy that's for everyone ( may not be perfect heck unless every decision goes to plebiscite not everyone will be happy but that's different issue.. Some aren't happy even then.. IN canada in last election particularly in ontario they asked whether proportional representation is the way to go forward.. these are the details and are not relevant in this debate) ..Point is no quirky little fellow is sitting somewhere with veto power making a mockery of rules and regulations to change the result or to throw tantrum that he/she is not going to work with the victor. Last time I checked seeing the verdict which was as per their constitution AlGore quite honourably conceded defeat. Same can't be said about Gandhiji who refused to cooperate so much so that congress came on verge of breaking then quite honourably Subhash Chandra Bose allowed that quirky gentleman to have his way and resigned..

[Lurker]

Electoral collage decided Bush wins so he won. you are being admant that no that's not the right way too bad americans think otherwise. they won't let u dicatet on their constitution point is they uphold the constitutin once they have laid it out.

Hahahaha..So from democracy it is now Electoral college? See the fallacy in your argument?? By that token Indian Congress did not let Subhas Bose lead. Now you, or anyone else, can do diddly squat about that. :finger: If you had argued about democracy itself then I could see your viewpoint but if you are holding onto a system then yes in the end INC system worked for India thanks much.

BTW u might have noticed we started with primary intra-party democracy and since u find thast part uncomfrotable to defend the great Gandhiji's behaviour u have raised this bogey of nitty gritty and details of their democracy.

I find your behaviour illogical(as usual). I read, and reread, the article and it is clearly about US political system. It does carry a snippet about Gandhi but lo and behold a loony to pick that and forget everything else. You obviously have little clue about Iowa caucus and primary election so no surprises why you limit yourself to what you know - bash Gandhi.

Fact of thet matter is whatever the rule of their democracy that's for everyone ( may not be perfect heck unless every decision goes to plebiscite noone will be happy but that's different issue) ..No quirky little fellow is sitting somewhere with veto power to change the result or to throw tantrum that he/she is not going to work with the victor.

So why didnt Gore win the election if every single American was the same. Answer that. xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Hahahaha..So from democracy it is now Electoral college? See the fallacy in your argument?? By that token Indian Congress did not let Subhas Bose lead. Now you, or anyone else, can do diddly squat about that. :finger: If you had argued about democracy itself then I could see your viewpoint but if you are holding onto a system then yes in the end INC system worked for India thanks much. I find your behaviour illogical(as usual). I read, and reread, the article and it is clearly about US political system. It does carry a snippet about Gandhi but lo and behold a loony to pick that and forget everything else. You obviously have little clue about Iowa caucus and primary election so no surprises why you limit yourself to what you know - bash Gandhi. So why didnt Gore win the election if every single American was the same. Answer that. xxx

Electoral college style ( which comes through popular vote) is not democracy..:D .. Thanks for letting me know.. had hoti hai stupidity ki.. U know u are wrong dude, u know u are wrong just face it .. Repeat after me (1) USA constitution had porvisison what will decide the popular vote and american adhered to it (2) Congress constitution had no provision that if a candidate not sympathetic to Gandhi wins then result is anulled.. If there was any let me know... Basically just like that Gandhiji deciuded no I am not accepting the verdict... I know u are thick but do u see the difference, right or wrong in one case well establsiehd pre-determined constitution is upheld in another someone decided just like that making a mockery of existing constittuion that he will not accept it.. It's about democracy Mr. face it you can't find even single democratic constittuional norm which was upheld by Gandhiji there .. American did uphold their constitutional democracy there was no quirky oldman with his foolhardyness in charge it was clear-cut rules laid for the democratic process which was upheld If u can't see the difference well I can't help u there.. Well u worry about USA I am more worried about India and so I talk about India:two_thumbs_up: Rest assured no Gandhiji vetoed Algore their constittuion democratically endorsed one several times might I add defeated AlGore.. Tomnorrow maerican if I fidn it problmeatic might change it but that's not the point; point is why a certain individual gets to veto election result making a mockery of constitution.. Enough detoruing of this and that face the fact Gandhiji was a very admant aristocrat cud cared less about the process if it came in his holier-than-thou way and had zero sense of intra-party democracy . USA primary election has upheld what great Mahtama cud not

[Guest dada_rocks]

All right DR ' date=' Why don't you answer this simple question , if Gandhi was into tradition of aristocracy and what not , how come his children and grandchildren missed the boat ? [b']Surely they would have been promoted by him in the political world based on his presumed tradition of aristocracy as you and the author claim ...

That tells he was not given to nepotism doesn't tell he had no holier-than-thou atttiude and hardly cared about democratic priniciple in face of uncomfortable results and wud much rather hoist his own choice on party making mockery of democracy.

[CC1981]

It's about democracy Mr. face it you can't find even single democratic constittuional norm which was upheld by Gandhiji there .. American did uphold their constitutional democracy there was no quirky oldman with his foolhardyness in charge it was clear-cut rules laid for the democratic process which was upheld

In the case, why don't you explain why Gore did not get to be president despite winning more votes in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS ? Oh and another thing- your two-bit village-educated self should really know better than calling all and sundry as idiots without any sort of backup.

Enough detoruing of this and that face the fact Gandhiji was a very admant aristocrat cud cared less about the process if it came in his holier-than-thou way and had zero sense of intra-party democracy .

Different times leads to different results. USA in the 1920s/30s/40s was most definitely not known for intra-party democracy either. I know you are not very educated on practically anything but if you bothered reading about how Rosevelt, Trueman, Hoover, etc. conducted intra-party elections, you'd realize that they too were autocratic. Comparisons need to be made in similar climate/historical context.