Analysis of Political Systems in India and China

Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals. (Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalists’ culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. In shaping a political culture demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity are essential to determine how a state is in any of the three categories. Society is strongly affected by decisions of who, what and when does an individual receive any types of goods or services. Government is the structure, buildings and institutions that are held within politics.

As with other civilizations, Chinese agriculture, especially irrigated agriculture, necessitated centralized political authority. It took centuries to take shape, but the early river civilizations moved from decentralized settlements to an expansive kingdom (covering most of the geography currently associated with China) by 221 BCE. The Chinese political structure was not centralized, but rather it was a feudal system. Though the emperor ruled from the capital city, lived in a palace, and required protection supplied by palace guards, he also ruled by consent from important landowning families called the nobility, or feudal lords. These lords exacted payments (usually a percentage of the annual harvest) from peasants, who were legally bound

However, both the Country Profile (2005) and Business Asia (2010:10) highlight that although the fundamental political keeps stable, the efficiency of political is low. The cause of this existed problem is that the national parties weakened gradually while the regional parties which influenced by the coalition government strongly (Business Asia, 2010:10). Current President is Pratibha Patil. (BBC News, 2011). As a result, India began to conduct a relatively free liberal market reform. Nonetheless, because of the interests of coalition government members are dissimilar, the speed of market reform is limited (Business Asia, 2010:10).

In the case of politics in Africa and India, both were completely different because of how they were ruled by the European nations. In Africa the natives thought they had political power, but the reality was that all politics, and decisions were made by the European’s. The natives thought that the leaders, and chiefs were making the decisions, but the indirect governing style the Europeans were using on their territories was to do exactly this. They tricked the public to keep the peace and avoided any revolts or rebellion from taking place in the country. The same cannot be said about India though. In India the direct governing style was in place. This meaning that all the previous leaders, and officials were replaced by the European officials,

India like the United States has a Democracy for their form of Government. India is a free nation with rights given to the people and laws to protect them. Although India’s Democracy is not exactly like the United States it is set up very similar. In the book Sarah doesn’t talk about India’s Government and never runs into any trouble by authorities, although she does mention that India has a Democracy. This means India is a free nation and allows people to have opportunities for individuals to decide which ones they would like to take. Within the Democracy, India like the U.S. has a strongly defined cast system.

As far as cultural differences between India and America, there are very many parties that restrict citizens from talking about their opinions openly with others. Citizens in India are scared to discuss politicians because they don't feel a need to be open about their opinions like here in the United States. Asfia tells me everyone in India is given the right to vote. Regardless of their

The productivity of a successfully ran country relies solely on the structure of the government laws and it’s polices. When the people are united and have an equal say in the ratifications of its countries constitutional legalities, less negative attention shall arise. Much as allowing the voice of each sound, mind, and body the opportunity to cast their votes upon chosen leaders and officials, projects fairness in the outcome of how a nation will be ran. However, if a people are subjected to laws or conditions that are unequal, it is imperative that some form of an outcry occurs. This places governmental officials within a huge dilemma. Ignoring the citizens of a state can cause internal friction. International media can

In Classical India and Classical China, the development of institutions and traditions were very different yet very similar in many ways. For instance, India and China both put women below men and considered merchants as a middle class. However, they differed in areas such as centralized government. Outside of the Mauryas and the Guptas, India was run by the religion-based caste system while China had a very centralized government, except for the Warring States period and the Three Kingdoms period. If you look closely, Classical China and Classical India are like opposites drawn in the same colours. They both socially stratified their people in ways dictated by their beliefs but while India made it impossible to move any way but down, China allowed movement in any direction through the pyramid of society if you could earn it. Furthermore, while China worshipped their ancestors and looked to learn from the past, India believed in reincarnation and looked to the future.

At first these plans along with an extremely ingenious propaganda campaign stirred great optimism and productivity within the Chinese people, but as years went by the initial flare and excitement went out and few of these promises, reforms and goals had been reached. In some cases the promises were lies. The real actions of the Communist party showed quite a different picture than the lie of democracy that it was feeding the people. The new government never was a democratic one. As a matter of fact it was a dictatorship controlled by the China’s Communist Party (CCP). Throughout the years the communist government consistently and cruelly suppressed any attempts for the country’s democratization.

India and China are two republics that have experienced very opposing political regimes throughout history. China has been fundamentally stable country with a lack of a distinct authority figure (Desai, 2003). Being a single party state China has been controlled by the Chinese Communist Party since the 5th National Congress held in 1927 (Wang, 2013). Correspondingly India, have always been a federal parliamentary democratic republic where the President of India elected is head of state and the Prime Minister elected is the head of government (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). This

In the year of 1989, the People’s Republic of China remains under a communist regime. As the world is moving forward with new technologies and innovations empowering new beliefs, democracy is becoming the next big government. China’s economy is slowly flourishing and their traditions still hang on. But with the increasing amount of western influences pouring into China through foreign trade, people are beginning to notice the wrong in communism. Citizens of China gradually learn more and more of the values and benefits of democracy and a small spark of change for a better government soon turns into a blazing inferno seen across the globe. The Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 is related to this year’s theme of standing up because it sent shock

A large amount of work done on the part of China savants, especially after the Cultural Revolution, ascribes major changes in state rules to the Party elites and the movements that they began. Despite of this, in the case of modern improvements in China it can be said that Deng Xiaoping and his economic liberalization enterprises were not simply initiatives from higher-ups who make a decision the future of their nation. These initiatives are at the least partly reactions to general patterns that already

Does China have the public sphere and civil society? This is a question that interests many scholars on modern China in the post-Cold War era when new `technologies seem to provide more opportunities for new forms of civil participation. But for many, this question is closely related to and indeed could not be answered prior to the query of whether China had any public sphere and civil society. Max Weber inquired into this issue a long time ago and concluded with a negative answer. The debate was brought up again by William T. Rowe and Frederic Wakeman in the wake of the Tiananmen Incident of 1989 China and the collapse of communism in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the early 1990s. This paper summarizes the major questions generated by the debate and addresses the problems of Wakeman’s arguments to shed light on the discussion of the development of the public sphere and civil society in contemporary urban China.

A reply to Singh, Jayal and Adeney” the various religious minority groups in India are closely examined and how the federal state attempts to transition them into accepting the traditions and values of Hinduism in efforts to create harmony between the oppressed and majority based states. She articulates on this by saying “while the central state in India used accommodation to maintain unity within core states, it used coercion against peripheral states” (Chadda 2003). This makes it evident that a healthy democracy cannot be maintained on the basis of religion, as religion is pertinent to perspective. Additionally, historical government leaders of India had started referring to the nation as “Hindustan” causing this notion of India being dominated by the Hindu population to be validated. By doing so, India moves further away from becoming truly democratic, since the whole Indian population does not conform to being identified as a “Hindustani”. Accordingly, the minority religions begin to revolt and create their own sub-nation in the country they are being alienated in, causing there to be a gap between the federal government and the minority and creating an ongoing

This article provides information about the communist state, it is obvious that these states are not democratic therefore the state define the social contract. However, evidence in this article suggest even country like China that will appease protestors; the state still determine the Social Contract.