The good and bad of democracy are self-evident. What was not, at least to me, is the theory that Asia needs a different version of democracy. Why? Are the prerequisities of a successful western democracy, namely an independent judiciary, a free press, a decent level of education to ensure political insight and activism, and a number of dedicated social reformers to keep the free markets fair, somehow absent in the brown and yellow populations of the world?

A suggestion of a downsized democracy for Asia, if made by a white person, is a racist remark. If made by a brown or yellow person, a self-deprecating one.

Infrastructural demand could be thought in terms of the signals that prices provide us. A political entity is not the best judge for it. Essentially entrepreneurs (or speculators) are the best judges or risk-takers of it. The less of public goods and the more private property out there, the more that entrepreneurs will have flexibility to respond to the demand. That is one reason why we see over-crowding in cities and sparse sub-urban areas. Essentially the infrastructural provision is entirely under public goods category. If I cannot privately provide electricity, schools, water obviously there is a supply constraint on infrastructure.

Authoritarian govts can provide infrastructure but again can they respond appropriately and respect civil freedom. I heard a Toyota manager here saying that “All roads are constructed straight in China.” because all opposition is steam-rolled!

More private property and stronger local governments is the way out!

Unfortunately, for all the democracy we talk about in India, there is no real democracy at the local level. We are very proud, and rightly so, that we directly or indirectly elect the PM and even the CM at the state level. At national and state levels, we wield our electoral stick very effectively, like what happended in the last state elections.

But we cannot say the same when it comes to the government and political leaders who affect us the most - the local ones. Our Mayors are called ´one year wonders´and are very little responsibility. The people who really run the cities for example are appointed bureacrats. No matter how good or well meaning the commissionar may be, he is no substitute to an accountable and empowered elected representative.

This is by design. Even the 73rd and 74th ammendments have done very little to rectify the situation since state governments have the power to define the implementation of these ammendments.

Local mayors and city councils can be short term oriented too. Many mayors and city councilors in the US for example make a mockery of lot of things. But they are also under a lot of pressure and scrutiny from the public. Apply the same scrutiny to state and national govts is almost impossible for ordinary people.

So I think before we discuss democracy versus authoritarianism, we need to discuss democracy at what level and how much really exists. Apples to Apples. A truely responsive local democracy with a responsive authoritarianism (Singapore). Political democracy like in India versus unresponsive authoritarianism (the choices are too many).

For e.g. US’s founding fathers had said that France (at that time) was too depraved to have the kind of republican democracy that they were instituting in the US and which they articulated in the US constitution.

Perhaps your question stems from the situation in the US, where in addition to being indoctrinated that classical liberal values are good, they are also indoctrinated with respect for constitutional tradition itself. That is, liberty is good because it is moral, but also because it is enshrined in the constitution.

But even such indoctrination of respect for the constitution can only be used to maintain the consensus, not to introduce new ones. Which is why the Founding Fathers of the US had shaken their heads at France.

Can classical liberal moral codes be installed through the creation of systems that encourage them and discourage forces that oppose them?

For example if a constitutional ammendement were to change India’s “First Past The Post” electoral system to a “Proportionate Representation” type of electoral system, would it take away the incentive from politicians to share power, and instead give them an incentive to perform well by being politically rewarded for it?

The quality of a nation’s constitution must surely affect the moral codes at play in that nation. So what exactly causes the difference between western democracies and eastern ones? Do western constitutions do a better job of nurturing moral codes? And if they do, couldn’t countries like India identify the elements in their constitution that affect the moral codes and make consitutional ammendments to implement those codes better? Of course anything that will dilute the government’s own power is unlikely to be pursued by any government, wherein lies the Catch-22. But perhaps there will come a government that will be mature enough to have a long term vision and, setting aside its short-term agenda, will pursue such constitutional ammendments.

Unlike most people here, I am no scholar. Any comments from you experts will help me understand things better and I would greatly appreciate it.

First off, there are two principals we’re dealing with here:
Free-market (socio-political) structures/institutions and the classical liberal mentality or moral code.

You’re saying that the classical liberal moral code should define the moral codes or the moral goals of the nation. I agree.

India, you aver, does not have the classical liberal mentality. Again I agree.

But then you make the statement that the transition from India’s moral code to a classical liberal moral code cannot happen in a planned manner.

As a historical anecdote, you aver that this moral code and institutions “evolved” slowly for western nations.

This is where I differ: your assumption that the moral codes of people can “evolve” organically betrays a lack of sociological sense.
I see this mistaken assumption in many classical liberal theorists and intellectuals, which is reflection of their sociologically utopian and a historically-ignorant mindset.

For a moral code to change organically, you have to assume that the common man can think about and assess the metaphysical validity of a moral code. Sorry to say, but he cannot.

Moral Codes are almost always INSTITUTED, and in a top-down fashion. What’s more, they are almost always indoctrinated since early childhood. Most important of all, they are supra-rational: the common man does not and cannot “think” about its metaphysical validity and decide on it.

Just because some educated Indians can undergo this metaphysical conversion does not mean you should presume that everybody can and has to. That is sociologically utopian. It is an inherently elitist enterprise. (By your token, all religions have to be organically developed, no?)

The sociological question we’re looking at is how are moral codes instituted, and changed?

You’re saying it can only be organically developed and wash your hands off the matter.
I’m saying it can ONLY be changed “inorganically” and with the help of social institutions: religion, nationalism to take two possibilities.