R we really losing out in the world because of an over tolerant state?

Question

even to the extent of being an impotent and over lenient democracy

should we look seriously at a what has been called ' Controlled Democracy'?

Answer 1

Umm, is the wold a race betwen countries, and how do you define losing?  In 2006, we marked over 3 quarters of a million men and women in jail, part of a total of 7.2 million under active corrections supervion, and probably more who would have gone "in" but were tageed for all sorts diversionary programs based on age, mental health or substance abuse.

It should be noted that keeping people out of prisons is simple pragmitism - those who go in are likeliest to continue lawbreaking.  Intolerance can become quite costly in tah vein - simply guaranteeing more overcrowded prisons.

"should we look seriously at a what has been called ' Controlled Democracy'?"

Not until you can provide both a definition for that, and can say just who has been doing the "calling".  I suspect that this term cannot be considered a very honet one since democracy implies government - that is to say, control.  So the questioner obviously has something special in mind, and the answerers need not have to google his homework for him.

Answer 2

Historically, the United States has typically thrived compared to other nations *because* of its leniency.

You'd have to make a very compelling case with examples as to where, exactly, we're "losing out in the world" because of our comparably high levels of civil rights.

In fact, I'd actually argue that we're suffering because of an over-reaction to 9/11 . . .foreign tourism and PhD enrollment in American universities is sharply off because we got too strict.  The long-term consequences of shutting ourselves off from the world and lashing out are probably much greater than we expect.

Answer 3

I completely agree with you.

We have too large a degree of freedom and democracy, given to people who are not educated and mature enough to handle it responsibly.

As a nation, our democratic setup tends to send weak signals. The government, for lack of strength takes poor and uncoordinated decisions.

A controlled democracy is required for atleast 2-3 decades to get the true democracy on the tracks, and to eliminate the useless politicians, and ineffective governance that we have today.

But who will bell the cat? No one is likely to take such tough decisions because the people who call the shots are not bothered about nation building. All they care of is their vote banks, and tough decisions are not vote catchers.

Answer 4

Guided democracy or controlled democracy- this should have been thought of by our leaders who have framed the constitution. If we want to change the present system we have to scrap theconstitution and bring forward a new one completely changed. This is not possible with the present political parties.  The country was poor and illeterate at the time of independance and the people were highly indesciplined as their aim was to drive away the aliens and establish home rule, in this process people indulged in violence. Our constitution framers should have given  thought as  to how to make the nascent nation a disci-lined one, before  liberally granting the fundemental rights at the cost of duties.

Answer 5

"Controlled Democracy" is not merely being bandied about.In fact it is very much in operation albeit subtly.

Our politicians,MLAs.MPs.ministers and top government officials are a law unto themselves,not to mention the judiciary as well.Their shenanigans and

general attitude are egregious and would take tomes to list.If one were to analyze the issue seriously,one would find that almost every aspect of a citizen's life is governed by some law or the other.Losing out in the world is too loose a term.In point of fact,it is the citizen who is losing out in society because the worthies named earlier are "more equal than the rest of us commoners".The private players to whom some functions like education etc. have been handed out (more as rewards for sycophancy and loyalty)are

ex-ministers,loyal party workers etc.Do you still feel that more functions need to be distributed among the

workers of the parties in power at any point of time?