These are my mere opinions and observations.
If someone asked me today that a rule of the people, by the people and for the people will take roots in Tunisia and Egypt; my answer will be a resounding 'no'; certainly not the type of rule we define as democracy.
In my mind I keep comparing the fight for self-rule in India to what has been happening in the Middle Eastern states. I see similarities between the two, in that, one, they were in most part non-violent fights and two, the incumbent governments were ousted.
What is different between the two scenarios is:
Tunisia and Egypt were ruled despotically by their own people; India, on the other hand, was being ruled by a foreign power. The power which was characteristically different from its own; starting from skin color, to religion, to culture, to food etc.
The fights in middle east are more or less reactionary. Public wanted to get rid of the current despots; but did not necessarily have plans for the future government. Despots were ousted within few weeks. Indian fight, on the other hand, was a long drawn out fight during which time the plans for the future government were, perhaps, discussed and laid out. India achieved the self-rule in August of 1947 and had her constitution, as imperfect as it was, drafted by January of 1948. Democracy took roots in India. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who started the fight for self-rule held a law degree from London (1891). He started his solo fight against discrimination in South Africa and ended with self-rule in India in 1947. Gandhi, having studied law, having lived and studied in London, probably, had better concept of what future rule should be like. Also, he was eventually surrounded by well educated and well travelled personnel who had better understanding of British and American systems of governance. Thus, Indian Democracy is a blend of the two, Prime Minister and a President. Irony is, India did not want Britishers but ended up with British style rule.
Having ousted the despots, general public from Tunisia and Egypt are fleeing their own land to Italy. Indians did not do that. Indians genuinely wanted a change with a plan in their back pocket.
This is why I do not believe the Democracy will take roots in Middle East.
If someone asked me today that a rule of the people, by the people and for the people will take roots in Tunisia and Egypt; my answer will be a resounding 'no'; certainly not the type of rule we define as democracy.
In my mind I keep comparing the fight for self-rule in India to what has been happening in the Middle Eastern states. I see similarities between the two, in that, one, they were in most part non-violent fights and two, the incumbent governments were ousted.
What is different between the two scenarios is:
Tunisia and Egypt were ruled despotically by their own people; India, on the other hand, was being ruled by a foreign power. The power which was characteristically different from its own; starting from skin color, to religion, to culture, to food etc.
The fights in middle east are more or less reactionary. Public wanted to get rid of the current despots; but did not necessarily have plans for the future government. Despots were ousted within few weeks. Indian fight, on the other hand, was a long drawn out fight during which time the plans for the future government were, perhaps, discussed and laid out. India achieved the self-rule in August of 1947 and had her constitution, as imperfect as it was, drafted by January of 1948. Democracy took roots in India. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who started the fight for self-rule held a law degree from London (1891). He started his solo fight against discrimination in South Africa and ended with self-rule in India in 1947. Gandhi, having studied law, having lived and studied in London, probably, had better concept of what future rule should be like. Also, he was eventually surrounded by well educated and well travelled personnel who had better understanding of British and American systems of governance. Thus, Indian Democracy is a blend of the two, Prime Minister and a President. Irony is, India did not want Britishers but ended up with British style rule.
Having ousted the despots, general public from Tunisia and Egypt are fleeing their own land to Italy. Indians did not do that. Indians genuinely wanted a change with a plan in their back pocket.
This is why I do not believe the Democracy will take roots in Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment