•

Reforms are difficult as our nation has too much of democracy, says multi-billionaire CEO

Reforms are difficult as India has too much of democracy, says NITI Aayog CEO

https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/reforms-are-difficult-as-india-has-too-much-of-democracy-says-niti-aayog-ceo/article33281237.ece

“Tough reforms are very difficult in the Indian context, we have too much of democracy...You needed political will to carry out these reforms (mining, coal, labour, agriculture) and many more reforms still need to be done,” Amitabh Kant said.

23 comments

puchaczyk

•

Reforms are easier to pass in autocracy, but those are not the kind of reforms one would want.

catch22

•

UK as an example, tories have gutted what democracy was there, now you can't swim in the water and go to prison for 10 years if you're deemed a nuisance

FuglyDuck

•

Yeah. Because corpos like this as get a say by voting with dollars.

Which really translates to bribes

TheBat

•

Not dollars, rupees.

Burn_The_Right

•

We are all rupee-billionaires on this blessed day.

vk6flab

•

That's a phrase I've never heard before: "too much of democracy".

ech

•

This is just "The best government is a benevolent autocracy" without the second half, which is "the next best government is democracy". And the unsaid part of the saying is "The worst government is a malicious autocracy", which is an eventual certainty.

Democracy has it's problems, but it's better than anything else we can realistically implement.

hehehe

•

A little context, he is the previous CEO of NITI Aayog, the "company" in question.

Niti aayog is a government owned think tank/ company whose purpose it is to do bring and do feasibility studies of possible government policies. The person is a civil servant and this was his previous job.

The company isn't a multi-billion dollar company, it's basically the government, that too under the bureaucratic wing of the government.

Burn_The_Right

•

"...our nation has too much democracy..."

Our billionaires have too much oxygen.

BeautifulMind

•

Translation: "We can't have it how I want it because you fucking people don't want that"

MajorHavoc

•

It's wild to have that much money and not be able to afford a history book.

TheBat

•

Since when is Amitabh Kant a billionaire?

He was an IAS (Indian Administrative Service) officer and CEO of a think-tank.

woelkchen

•

Since when is Amitabh Kant a billionaire?

Maybe depending on the currency?

ChicoSuave

•

CEO of a think-tank

He's saying the thought he was paid to think in the tank and testing the reaction. It could also be a broader message to ask for support from other donors.

Folks don't pay attention to what oligarchs do or they think it is non-siniater in its intent. Oligarchs, the politically influential rich folks will continue to linger in the spaces where corrupt politics fester. They make friends with lawmakers and then spend a lot of time with them to plant those seeds of corruption and "reform".

If the poor spent time with politicians like the rich do, laws would be more fair to society as a whole.

Sam_Bass

•

People like him can only see the world through a forest of dollar signs. Dont trust the blindness

gmtom

•

If you just put "democracy" in quotes, then suddenly I agree with him

snekerpimp

•

We already live in a corporatocracy, citizens united made sure of that.

huginn

•

He's not talking about America.

Treczoks

•

While that is true, it still applies.

Aatube

•

This is out of context.

young_broccoli

•

The article you linked actually confirms it isnt out of context. Its just a politician lying to save face.

From the article:

Kant’s statements and the context can be heard in the full video. It is not clear what prompted the publications to delete their stories or change the headlines when a video of the interview is available and what he said was quoted verbatim.

Anarchistcowboy

•

I mean he's got a point it's just a stupid point.

bluewing

•

There is a tiny, tiny kernel of truth in that statement. And by in large, regardless of political beliefs, most people want a strong central government applying top down solutions to their problems. (Which can have it's own set of unintended issues)

An example might be single payer health care. A majority of voters would really like it. But it's one thing to say that and get it passed. But it's another whole ball of worms to create the nuts and bolts of such a system. Everyone has their own ideas about how it should work. And until you can get everyone to agree on the nuts and bolts in a democracy there will be difficulties. So unless you have the outright power, (something not so "democratic"), to say "This is how we are going to do it", you are going to probably end up with a gridlocked discussion and no healthcare. And if someone does have that power to force the answer - even it you don't like it - your democracy isn't what you think it is.