You are on page 1of 2

Democracy in India is good, but not in the present form.

Democracy will be useful when the same rule and law is imposed on all irrespective of their social status. The present type of multi-party parliamentary democracy is the main reason for many evil practices in many fields. Day by day people get divided and segregated into several inactive groups by the politicians on the basis of religion, caste, language and region etc. At present politicians or Celebrities those who want to become a CM or PM start their own party, giving shelter to anti social elements with black money, only to divide people and create a new group of their own vote bank. It is good, if India adopt and have a bi-party system where voters can directly vote and elect their PM or CM. Based on the % of votes polled to the parties, MPs or MLAs can be nominated by each party according to their manifestos and priorities. This will prevent the horse trading of MPs and MLAs. In a two party system the cost for the candidates contesting the elections from both the parties can be borne by the EC, which can remove lot of corruption from the politics. When corruption from politics and in politicians is prevented, then the entire system can fall in line. It is the ideal solution to get rid of several un-holy practices in the entire system and to take the country forward rapidly towards its goal. The present and future generations should spend some time to think and act on this matter. All like minded people should come together to bring clean and good politics. Swamy Vivekananda inspired all Americans during his visit. Sri Lal Bahadur Sastry by saying Jai Javan and Jai Kisan created an history and became an example of good, strong and effective PM. Every year Indians are are increasing their population by several lakhs. CANT THEY CREATE OR IDENTIFY ONE SUCH HONEST PATRIOTIC LEADER OUT OF THIS TO LEAD THEM IN A RIGHT DIRECTION. Think, what should they do? Where do they fail?

Favour
The fact that the system provides equality to everyone ,from whatsoever background and competency makes it
easier to play around loopholes in the Indian Statute capable and have there own aims and shelfishness.

Democracy not play a direct role to prmote the corruption but it give power to the people who could be non Democracy not play a direct role to prmote the corruption but it give power to the people who could be non In damocratic system a person is chosen by other people.This procedure could be faulty because human being can
be motivated trough the means of greed,or fear. capable and have there own aims and shelfishness.

Against
The risk of Democracy is a systemic risk ; corruption is a personal equation and holds good or bad depending on
an individual's and organization's personal value systems. The two should therefore not be construed/ read as a cause- effect relationship. Democracy give choice to people to select the leaders on the basis of there capabilty and goodness.If people choose the wrong leaders then that is not the problem with democracy that is the problem with people.

Conclusion
The democracy dont support the curruption at all.But the people them selves are greedy and selfish who are
motivatd for corruption

dear reader, please read the entire post before navigate to anywhere. this topic is very important. i want to go to the root of our problems.like if the car has no break, it will cause accident no matter how efficient the driver is, like that if our political structure is not the right one, we would have problems no matter how efficient the administrators are. here i want to discuss the essential conditions for the success of democracy in a country. what are the conditions for success of democracy in a country? they are as follows.............

1]democracy succeeds in a country where people are not suffering from poverty too much because poverty keeps people uneducated, backward and timid. in India poverty is overwhelming and perhaps never ending. most of the people of India is poor, uneducated.in globalization, these people become more poor. 2]according to H.B.mayo "a democracy is unique in recognizing the political expression of such conflict as legitimate and in providing for their peaceful adjustment through the negotiation for politics, as an alternative to their settlement by force of fiat." in other word democracy prospers in peaceful environment. it will be successful where the settlement of conflict is peaceful. in India, where Muslim terrorism is in its height, it is impossible to use democracy because the conflict of terrorism can't be settled peacefully. 3]for smooth working of democracy a free fearless and independent press is necessary, who can criticize govt. when the later is taking a wrong decision.in India there is no FREE PRESS.most of the channels are either owned by govt. or funded and supported by govt. 4] according to barker, social homogeneity and national homogeneity are two things necessary for success of democracy. this means there should be ONE SOCIETY AND ONE CULTURE in a country where democracy is successful. but in India, there are 28 different culture and belief system. in Europe there is one culture that is christian culture. that's why democracy becomes a success there. but the situation is not same in India. 5]in a democratic govt., the opposition criticize the ruling party when the later makes a wrong decision. but in India, whenever the ruling party takes a decision, the opposition criticize it no matter whether the decision is good or bad. 6] last but not the least, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A BELIEF IN DEMOCRACY AND THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. in india few people know what democracy is and most people don't believe in democracy. by now dear reader, you understand why democracy is not right for india. india needs A MONARCHE WHO HAS A STRONG FAITH AND PRIDE IN THE NATION AND WHO IS NOT AFRAID TO WAGE WARS AND WHO DO NOT BEG MONEY BEFORE ANY FOREIGN STATE AND WHO IS SUPPORTED BY A STRONG AND WISE GROUP OF MINISTERS