very nice article indeed !!…but I think the author stops in taking the main point to its logical end

the bureaucracy that controls india is actually representative of a very very minute segment of our society (appx 2%)…. powerful bureaucratic posts are held by urban, male, upper caste educated people who belong that elite upper crust of our poor society (as per NCAER survey in india less than 1% people earn more that 500 thousand INR per year)

being from this privileged section, when all my privileges are based upon the poverty of others, I for one have no incentive to make sure that all good intentioned schemes of govt get implemented.

this CASTE and CLASS divide which is so deeply intrenched in our society is real cause of our economic ills

On one side we have the view that “we deserve the kind of politicians we get”. i.e. the political class essentially represents the larger nature of the electorate, given free and fair elections. Now this would mean that in a country like India whose political class is hugely corrupt, bigoted and regressive the larger electorate by extension is corrupt, bigoted and regressive. Also that the electorate largely votes for local leaders rather than the larger national agenda. These smart leaders will then subvert the national agenda and put roadblocks on long-term economic development. This also encourages the always-difficult choice between the long-term and the short term. Economic development and structural reforms are tough in the short-term but will yield benefits in the long-term. However do voters tend to value the populist-but-bad policies in the short-run having little patience to wait it out. So if the average voter is selfish and wants ‘free power’ / ‘free food’, and agrees to vote for any unscruplous element the voter is equally culpable for bad governance.

The other argument is that that the electorate is so poor that whoever promises the moon and even delivers a fraction, will come to power. That large sections of the population have been so repressed and poor that whoever is willing to stand up and give them a sliver of hope and respect, however fantastical will win. On one hand we can blame the electorate for it’s gullibility that a few individuals can manipulate it so brazenly and get away with it – effectively putting brakes on long-term development. Those who are struggling to suvive do not really care about the national agenda. They are only looking for short-term goodies every election as that is the best they can hope for. It does not help to wait for “long-term economic development” when you are starving. Hence we ‘psuedo-intellectuals’ with out bellies full and ability/access to write a blog should be more kind in judging our fellow-citizens.

The lesson to take away is that democracy is related to “informed” choices. The issue is who decides whiat is “informed”? So does this mean that in a country with universal adult sufferage, those folks who are not ‘informed’ should not have a right to vote ? It also begets the uncomfortable question that if numbers are what are important in a democracy then that population that procreates more heavily will, in the long term have a disproportinate say in the government ? (In the US context where the red states have higher birthrates, these states will in the long-term assert their numerical superiority ?)

What is the first requisite of being “informed” ? I guess it is primary eductation. For democarcy to succeed in India, the first thing to do is educate everybody. Primary education is however hampered by extreme poverty (today’s survival is more important than preparing for tomorrow) and regressive soical values (gender roles, male-dominance). These however, cannot be eliminated without primary education and this, sadly, remains a vicious cycle.

Atanu : any views ?