It is clear that the Chinese have learnt the value of changing top party leadership. Unlike the old model of an one-man party who rules till death, now the top leader's tenure is time bounded. After his tenure finishes he resigns and gives way to a new leadership. Now take any Indian party - national or local - the same party president remains till death. Take Nitish, Laloo, Maya, J Basu even Modi. These people want to stay CM/PM till death. People ask why don't aamAdmi join politics and every party develops nepotism - good question? Is there a way to revolve and revitalize top party leadership, there is no rule where party leaders step way for new generation. Why does Indian political system (or any other system) not produce new leadership - good question.Take any civilized democracy across the world-the top leadership will resign after tenure is over. In both US and UK the premier is allowed two terms at most. Go to any country in Europe, go to Japan - it is the same case. Not in India though - the party presidents never change. And when the same party is re-elected the same person comes back to power. What a beautiful way to keep the system dynamic and bring in new ideas and leaders. The system in India you have political parties which are mostly family businesses and driven by a single egomaniac. Take the left or BJP who are more cadre based - they have produced CMs who will hang around till death. Hu was good but he steps aside - Chinese learn from their mistake we dont
Re: Difference between Chinese and Indians
by trikarn on Nov 08, 2012 04:08 PM
ours is fuedal system one lord rules over his slaves that is us. we had 5oo maharajas/rajas/zamindar before the brits came in REPLACED BY NUMEROUS LORDS.IE POLITICIANS OF ALL KINDS.
