外国网友：若民主伟大，为何中国领先印度？ [美国媒体]

If democracy is so great, why is China way ahead of India?

如果民主如此伟大，为何中国遥遥领先印度？


Balaji Viswanathan
If water is so great, why do you need food? This question sounds like that. Democracy and free markets are both a necessity for a healthy economy. 
India and China are two faulty countries, both missing a key element. India is an experiment with democracy but no free market. China is an experiment with relatively free markets but no democracy. Both are failed experiments as the chart below would show: 
Although China is ahead of India, it is way, way behind its East Asian peers who are democracies. Thus, instead of worrying about India's democracy. Democracy is one saving grace for India that allows the nation to be much more peaceful and powerful compared to its South Asian peers.

你的问题就像：“如果水这么重要，为什么还要吃饭？”对于健康的经济来说民主和自由市场都是必须的。
印度和中国是两个有问题的国家，都缺少一个关键元素。印度是个民主试验场但没有自由市场。中国有自由市场经济但没有民主。下图将展示给你他们都是失败的尝试：
尽管中国领先印度，但换个角度，他远远落后于其他东亚民主国家。因此，不要担心印度的民主，民主是印度的一个可取之处让印度比其他南亚国家更加稳定和强大。



Somnath Mishra, Born Indian, not Proud!
Do not cherrypick, why is China way behind Japan? Way behind the US? Way behind the UK, way behind South Korea in per capita measures.
Aren’t these all democracies?
Democracy is a system and a system alone is not enough for it to function perfectly, it requires people to contribute to it equally. Can we compare the current state of Indian democracy with the exemplary monarchies of ancient India? Like India under Samudragupta, Harshvardhan, or the Maurya dynasty? Probably not! An exemplary monarch is any day better than a democracy however a bad monarch is way worse than a bad democracy!
Indian democracy is immature and is still suffering from the post colonial social problems of caste and religious divide. In India people dont cast their votes, they still vote their caste. That way democracy is unlikely to fulfill its potential. Of course people are getting more educated and more aware with time but it still needs at least 50 more years to mature.
Then there’s free market, India was a closed market and a socialist country until 1991, which badly affected its progress. As a nation India lacks the resources to meet the demands of its own population, the model of socialism only works if the country has surplus resources which India unfortunately lacks.

你不能这么比，为何中国在人均层面落后日本？为何落后美国？落后英国，落后韩国？他们不都是民主国家吗？
民主是一种制度，而一个制度不足以让事情都完美运转。他需要人们都平等的做出贡献。我们能比较现代印度的民主和古代印度的模范君主吗？就像笈多王朝和孔雀王朝那会？肯定不能！好的君主随便哪一天都比民主好但是坏的君主可比坏民主糟糕的多。
印度的民主是不成熟的，饱受后殖民时代的种姓制度及宗教问题的影响。在印度人们不投票，他们仍然选他们的种姓。这样的民主不可能发挥其潜力—当然随着时间的推移人们会获得更多的教育和见识，但这仍需至少50年时间才能成熟。、
然后说说自由市场经济，直到1991年，印度还是个封闭市场的社会主义国家，严重影响了印度的发展，印度作为一个国家缺乏资源来满足内需，社会主义制度只在国家生产过剩的时候管用，不幸的是印度缺乏产能。

Makarand Sahasrabuddhe,
This question is based on flawed logic. 
You are defining "way ahead" in terms of a set of parameters (presumably size of the economy, infrastructure, time taken to get anything done etc) and then asking about "greatness" of something that is only marginally connected to the metrics you use to define the situation of being "way ahead".  
Somewhat like, "If Indian culture is so great, why are American movies winning more Oscars?"
As Winston Churchill had once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It is the best (from all those available at this juncture) form of government if you use
；freedom for the people.
；engagement of people in decision making.
；better governance.
；respect for human rights.
as parameters. 
If you use purely economic parameters, then an autocratic form of government may be able to do well in the short term since it does make decision making efficient.
Also before saying that China is way-ahead, ask yourself if you would like to live in a place where：
；you could  be jailed for expressing the slightest dissent.
；large infrastructure projects run roughshod over environmental concerns damaging long term national interest
；your government decides that you can have only one child.
In the long term though, democracies don't do too badly - have a look at the USA and most of Western Europe.

这个问题有逻辑缺陷。
你定义的领先都是一些参数诸如：经济规模，基建，效率等等。然后你问的伟大的事情和你所定义的遥遥领先的关系几乎是风马牛不相及。就像你问：既然印度文化如此伟大，为何美国电影获得了奥斯卡？
丘吉尔曾说过：“除了所有已经尝试过的制度，民主是最糟糕的政治制度。”这是最好的你当下所有政府制度中可以使用的：
；人民自由
；人民更好地参与决策
；更好的治理
；对人权的尊重
参数方面。
如果你仅仅只看经济参数，独裁政府也许在短期内会做的不错毕竟他的决策都很有效率。
之前你说中国遥遥领先，问问你自己如果你生活再这样一个地方：
；如果你表达丝毫的异议就会被囚禁
；大型基础设施无情的破坏生态环境并长时间损害国家利益
；你的政府规定你只能有一个孩子
从长远眼光看，民主制度并不是太坏，看看美国和绝大多数西欧国家吧。

Kirk Wu
By "way ahead" I assume you are talking about pace of development/economic growth. Economic growth comes from good governance, and democracy does not necessarily provide good governance. Democracy is about social justice, transparency and fairness. 
India's level of governance is low. China's level of governance is high. India has democracy (heavily flawed though it is), China has no democracy. 
The "great" thing I assume would be an ideal world in which you can have both democracy and good governance? And there are many good examples for that like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.

关于遥遥领先我猜你说的是经济发展方面，经济增长来源于有效的管理，而民主不提供有效的管理，民主是关乎社会公正，法治，透明的。
印度管理水平低，中国的管理水平高。印度有民主（尽管有严重缺陷），中国没有民主。
关于伟大我设想的是一个既民主又有良好行政的世界?这有很多很好的例子比如战后的德国和日本。

Ishaan Raj
China is ahead of India, Agreed !!
But countries ahead of China like USA, UK, Germany are all democracy. Democracy gives everyone their rights, and people can decide their leader. There are a lot of flaws in " so called system" here in India. Like people getting paid to vote.
Democracy depends on people, and a lot people cannot see a bigger picture mainly because of illiteracy. This allows politicians and lawmakers to fool them. 

中国领先印度，我同意！
但是领先中国的美国英国德国都是民主国家。民主给予每个人权利，而且人民可以决定他们的领袖是谁。印度所谓的民主有很多缺陷，比如人们拿钱投票.民主取决于人民，许多人无法看到更大的世界因为他们是文盲，这使得政客和立法者可以愚弄他们。

Chandravadan Trivedi
1) Democracy works where the population is literate, & have freedom of speech & free economy. Though on paper, but in actual fact, illiterates get inside as law makers.
China: Mao has had the best road map for making people work, with no democracy.Work brings in direct results.E.g.Germany, Taiwan, S.Korea, Singapore.
2) Indian law makers - especially the leaders, have at the most a law degree & are not technically educated.technology is needed to develop a country - not law makers. The MP's don't understand technical proposals & have the habit of sending them to select committees.
China: All their leaders have an engineering degree, & they can understand the technicalities of development & for this reason they have advanced this far.
3) They have been instrumental in curtailing their birth rate - as higher population eats away the results of development.
India: It's a ticking bomb, & no worthwhile rules & regulations are still in place to curtail birth rate.
4) India: The judicial system is too laggard & slow to give results, with the result - it's justice delayed - no justice.
China: Justice is imminent & results are very fast enough。
5) China: Most of the members of hierarchy are members of armed forces & are disciplined.
India: Nobody would have been even an N.C.C. cadet, forget any military training. Such leaders cannot be expected to give any results.
6) China: They had a chequered past.They have seen ample civil wars & those against foreign powers. They are a weather beaten people.
India: Only the Punjabis had a chequered past, as they had to bear the brunt of Moghul invasions. This is the reason why Punjabis constitute almost 1/3 of Indian Army. The Indians are not weather beaten like the Chinese - with the result - they take things easy & lightly.

1.在人民受过教育，有言论自由和自由经济的地方民主才有作用。名义上，但实际上，文盲混入了立法者的行列。
2.印度的立法者-特别是领导层，最多只有个法学学位而且没有受过理工科教育。技术是发展国家所必需的-而不是立法者。议员们看不懂工程建议书也没有习惯把这些送到特别委员会去。
中国：所有领导层都有工学学位，他们可以理解发展建设的各种术语这就是他们增长如此之快的原因。
3.中国一直在设法减少人口出生率-太多的人口会侵蚀发展的成果；印度：这是一个定时炸弹，在这里毫无章法和规则去限制人口出生率。
4.印度：司法制度太过迟缓和落后去给出一个结果，所以呢，公正来得太迟或者没有公正；中国：正义就在眼前而且结果出来的足够快。
5.中国大多数军方高层都严谨守纪，印度军官甚至都不如一个NCC实习学员，忘记任何军事训练，这样的指挥能期待有什么结果。
6.中国:他们有一个曲折的历史。他们见识了太多的内战以及反抗外国势力。他们是一个饱经风霜的人。
印度:只有旁遮普人有一个曲折的过去,他们不得不在莫卧儿入侵中站在前面。这就是旁遮普人构成几乎1/3的印度军队的原因。印度人不像中国人那样经历了风吹雨打—所以他们做事懒散轻浮。