Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

> And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position

You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy or free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries).

> India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about.

"Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants.

[0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.

View on HN

To add to this, you may even be able to say that India is more democratic than the US in some aspects. The US electoral system often means that some people have a much more powerful vote than others depending on where they live. Gerrymandering is another aspect of this.

In India politicians often do not represent the views of their voters because they are often elected based on identity, not policies. The key thing to note here is that this is not due to the structure of the system (which is democratic); rather; it is due to how the game is played -- no amount of improvements to the system (short of a direct democracy?) or laws can change this since this is a matter of how the people are voting.

You covered both points, gerrymandering and (sectarian) identity politics. I don't think there is a better or worse here. They both suck in their own unique ways. But I agree that India is more democratic than the US. We have many parties to choose from.

Direct democracy is not a solution either. That will lead us straight to the tyranny of the majority. The religious and intellectual minorities will suffer straight-away. I won't elaborate on that. Next, it will be the wealthy. What would stop the illiterate majority from voting to take away all the wealth of the 1%?

The only way out I see is with the Supreme Court taking drastic measures to clean up the constitution. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

Agreed; my point was more of that they are comparably bad; India is not orders of magnitude worse. By some yardsticks, India is better, by others the US is. That should be enough to call India a democracy (if you call the US one).

Totally agree that direct democracy won't help. I'm saying it is the only way that you have a chance of getting rid of the kind of identity politics present in India by changing the system itself. I made that point just to highlight how the undemocratic nature of identity politics was not a feature of the system. I mean, with a direct democracy propaganda can and will still entice people to vote against their own interests, and minorities will be in a bad situation as you said. It introduces new problems; but it is the one way you have a chance of getting rid of this problem (identity politics) by changing the system. The actual fix for this lies in social change.

> India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants.

Nope, it is isn't. Comparison between UK & India with vastly different citizenry, laws, enforcement and track record is a non starter.

> You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, but even if you weren't...

I wish to bring your statement forward: it is spot on here!

You're right. We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre without the democracy in question being available, i.e. a democracy that stands for: equity, representation, freedom and justice. Note, it includes free speech.

Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the state then?

A democracy is just a system of government where the population make choices, it does not automatically stand for freedom and justice, and why should it be?

It's best not to confuse the liberalism tradition of the west with democracy.

> Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the state then?

That is not the claim I contested. Nor is it the statement you made, which was:

> [Modi] is well known to have massacred colleagues based on their beliefs/position

though it seems that you have now moved the goalposts to:

> We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre [because of a lack of free speech and democracy]

Without free speech you don't have well informed voters. Without well informed voters your democracy is just an authoritarian state that makes decisions by voters as proxy.

Without free speech you don't have well informed voters

What about uninformed bullshitting speech that cause voters to not make the 'well-informed' choice?

Are you arguing that there is only one "correct" choice? Such a belief is rooted in authoritarianism, not democracy.

I am not arguing authoritarianism or democracy, just pointing out that anybody can believe or say anything they want in a society with free speech.

What is the forcing function that moves voter toward making informed choices, whatever informed may be?

What is the forcing function that moves voter toward making informed choices, whatever informed may be?

Education.

That still implies an uncomfortable level of authoritarianism. Educated by who, about what, how, to what end? Facts and opinions often don't have much to do with each other.

Educated by society, about democratic principles, through any means available, to teach informed decision making. No authority required, except for a commitment to the democratic proces; the rest is up to society itself.

What is and isn't uninformed bullshitting speech is something a voter should be able to figure out by comparing it with all the different forms of speech they have access to.

If you only have one form of speech because others are not allowed, how is any voter to tell if it's bullshit?

What if the state could make the choice of excluding incorrect views from spreading across the population? Would that improve outcome in elections?

Of course, we cross into the treasonous water of the state possibly banning views that it didn't like, rather than simply uninformed views.

Excluding incorrect views is difficult. If you only do it lightly, as is done with the holocaust you don't get very far. If you go further, say what China is doing, you get quite a lot of criticism which can be a problem.

You also risk succumbing to your own biases and excluding information that is correct. If that happens and the truth comes out, which it always does, your state eventually becomes unstable.

Wasn't Modi what in the West is considered as far right? Expansionist, supremacist with strong authoritarian tendencies - the whole 9 yards. And I think his skeletons were literal. That is what the press in Western Europe wrote about.

But the Modi that the world has been seeing is highly democratic, visionary, hardworking, tech savvy and result oriented. I'd argue that a human being, especially a politician cannot transform from what press had shown earlier to what the world has witnessed in last two years. Clearly the press got a wrong POV about Modi earlier and I'd not hesitate to say that it was a strategic and intentional propaganda from Modi's opponents in the country, as he's made life hell for the corrupts in his state Gujrat and they were clearly frightened as he'd be the face of the party in future for national election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com