-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Add your name to the CLEAN GOA INITIATIVE | | | | by visiting this link and following the instructions therein | | | | http://shire.symonds.net/pipermail/goanet/2005-October/033926.html | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chita's exposition of presidential permutations is quite right. Funny too. Probably possible to go on ad infinitum examining nuances between "President" Fidel, "President" Kim Jong the Second (as Bush hilariously read out from his typed page when he first emerged out of the Texas swamps, "President" Kalam, "President" Peron, Mexican Presidents, "President" Elizabeth Windsor. Could it be that when people say "Presidential system" some are actually thinking dictatorship? -----Original Message-----
Dear Stanley, I am not apposed to Democracy.Our Democracy is in trasition.58 years in a NATIONS life is no more then a 7 year old kid. That is the level of our political maturity .Personally I think that a PRESIDENTIAL system is what India needs till litracy takes over and endows the voter with the capacity to discerne.Hegde mooted this years ago thereby signing his political obituary. Ranga -------Original Message------- From: C Gauba <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ah, the presidential system. Let's start by defining just what we mean by the presidential system. We have several examples, all different, such as: 1. The American version, in which the President runs the government under a budget approved by a totally different set of people (themselves in two different camps), the whole shebang somehow balanced by the decisions of Nine Old Men (which includes a woman); 2. The French version, in which the President pretends nothing much has changed since the days of L'etat c'est moi and appoints a Prime Minister to keep things going until he gets fired for messing up; 3. The Pakistani version, in which sundry Generals promote themselves to Field Marshal and, presumably tiring of olive drab and khaki decide smart civilian suits look better and re-title themselves (but ensure they retain being Commander-in-Chief). We can go on. There's the Russian version, or even the Chinese version, where the real President is not the President at all but the Secretary of the Communist Party. Hmmm. Not sure why any of these methods would have been better for India than what we have now, nor why someone like, say, Tony Blair is less effective (a head-of-government in a parliamentary system) than, say, George W across the Atlantic. As you can see, I am very far from convinced that a presidential system would have been at all an improvement, and if someone can expound a bit on how it might help, it would be helpful! Cheers - ___________________________________ Dear Stanley, Many people who have visited China, in particular Shanghai, have been overwhelmed with that country's progress and justifiably so. A giant asleep for centuries, has awakened and is showing the world its true prowess. However, our case is not as hopeless as it would appear as I can say with my own (albeit limited) experience in competing with Chinese merchandise in third Asian countries. It is quite impossible for the over 60s (I think most of your "subscribers" are that) to live to see India catching up with China in their lifetimes. Changes will be required in the laws of our land and in fact, of the Constitution for that to come about. To retain the present system and yet undergo change, we will first have to go through a period of suffering as China did, before the direction is reversed. We see some such glimmer in Bengal these days. Failing that, we will continue as at present at the "Hindoo" rate, that is, very, very slowly and be left far behind. What to do in the meantime? We need to ascertain our competitive advantages vis-a-vis China and move acordingly. I.T. is a striking example of such a strategy. It can be followed by tourism, minerals and agriculture and by other service "industries" and commodities. As far as manufacturing is concerned which is China's main forte, we will need to await the revaluation of the Yuan and the depreciation of the rupee to compete effectively. The former is undervalued and the latter overvalued. Coming to my own experience, I found that we could compete when (i) Volumes were not very big; (ii) Quick responses and flexibility were required; (iii) The dialogue was in King's (Queen's?) Engish or close to that; (iv) Quality was consistent and upto the customers' minimum expectations, and (v) Delivery schedules were maintained. The Chinese at times failed on many of these counts. There was also, the question of quotas but that was not a commercial handicap and it applied to us, as well. On this basis, we could compete in manufacturing but when it came purely to price and quality, particularly the former, we were often way behind. I have only referred to commerce which in my opinion, can be the main thrust for progress. Other things like governance, cleanliness, "art of living", etc., are equally or more important, but they are in the realm of politicians and bureaucrats of which I have no experience. We have excellent laws but it is impossible to maintain them effectively and so, the people in power have a good time. We need to reduce legislation and govern it effectively with minimal nepotism and corruption. That is when the light at the end of the tunnel will become visible. Kind regards. Yours sincerely, D. J. Madan.