Recently, I read A Fine Balance, which also happens to be an Oprah's Book Club book (apparently way back in 2001). I'd never been all that interested in India; I'd never even had Indian food until I came to Boston. If not for my book club, I don't think I would have ever picked this book up, especially in its 600+ page monstrous form.
This book put India on the radar for me, but not in a good way. During Thanksgiving dinner, I had a conversation with Broadway's cousin about India because he had recently spent a few days there for business. We both remarked that India was one of those neutral travel destinations for us: it would certainly be interesting to see, but neither one of us have a real driving desire to go out of our ways to visit.
Comparing the paths that India and China have both taken in the latter half of the 20th century, it is very obvious to see the distinct political paths these two third world countries have taken, and equally blaring are the different economic developments these countries have experienced. To think that India was so revered as the success story of a third world country that managed to establish a democratic government, yet it was just as crippled by corruption as any other third world country "trying to make it" out there.
China, not without its own problems, nevertheless drove itself through significant modernization. The current quality of living in cities is not much below that of the west, if at all inferior, and all this was accomplished with an "authoritarian" Communist government. I even heard someone today say that sometimes democracy is seen as the government of the priviledged, that inherantly, it takes a certain level of prosperity in order for democracy to work effectively. That doesn't sound very democratic.
Regardless of the validity of this democratic criticism, I think India is an example of how democracy did not work. More recently, the democratic elections in Iraq are probably further evidence that democracy and individual rights are not the answer to all governmental problems. This makes me sad, for two reasons:
1) I realize that I have become so completely jaded. I cannot ideally regard any situation, have unwavering hope and faith in the good of the world. Democracy is the individualists' ideal, yet it is impossible in its most ideal form, even in a developed world like the US. The realist that I am cannot allow me to even acknowledge the virtues of democracy.
2) I roll at eyes at the ignorance of everyone who proclaims democracy to be the answer in Iraq. I admit that in being disappointed by these people, I do stand on my own educated pedestal and judge all the masses who are singing about the saving graces of democracy and uninformedly claiming that it will cure Iraq.
In the end, what we need is not democracy. We need geunine leaders. Our children need education. I haven't lost hope in the human power to inspire. I haven't lost hope that there are good, corruption-free people who would come to power in India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, any number of African nations and lead these nations out of their current unstable states.
To that end, though, I am saddened by my own lack of initiative, my own excuses for why I cannot help first hand. It's too hard. It will take too long. There is a process for everything, and we must work through the red tape to get anything done, and that's just impossible when everyone is so corrupt.
Pointing to another recent read, Three Cups of Tea, one person CAN make a difference. So why am I still insisting on simply sitting on my couch?
No comments:
Post a Comment