China and India and Political Cultures

India and China are two of the world's oldest technological breakthroughs. Until the eighteenth century, most Europeans thought the two to be fabled sites of great riches and intelligence (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 220). From the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, Europeans saw the two countries as symbols of stagnation, archaism, and weakness. The situation did not improve in the twentieth century, as the view of the two countries as the epitome of misery grew (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 220). However, these opinions were not far from the reality of the nations' actual conditions.  From the time in history, they were and remain to be the most populous countries in the world. By 1820, their combined populations stood at an excess of half a billion, and by the start of the twentieth century, the figure stood at seven hundred million (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 220). Their people trebled in the twentieth century. At the time they were also considered to be the most miserable nations, characterized by famines, diseases, backwardness, and fallacies, with bounded feet women and men characterized by elongated ponytails, superior beyond the light, and several divinities with many heads and limbs (Ball, 2007, p. 26).

The narrative around China and India changed in the last forty years of the twentieth century. The nations were no longer archetypes of failure but somewhat dynamic economies. The two jumped out of their past political hardships to more open societies. They have experienced opposing political regimes in their histories. China has had a reasonably stable governance structure whereas India adopted a more federal structure that is parliamentary with the President being in charge of the nation and the Prime Minister as the leader of government (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). This study will reflect on the political structures of both China and India regarding their political systems, cultures, national interests.

Political Systems

The political systems of China and India bear some similarities. Development in the two nations sped up after they undertook legislative changes. China restructured its political system in the 1980s by adopting a more open plan and reducing its initial authoritarian practice (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). These changes acted like a miracle for growth as they enacted better private ownership of property policies. India also accelerated with the advent of the 1990s. It decentralized its political arrangement and instigated governance improvement. Both China and India have Presidents and Prime Ministers as the first offices. The presidents in both are the commanders-in-chief of the armed forces as well as the Heads of Countries whereas the Prime Ministers preside over governments (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). In both countries, the Presidents and the Prime Ministers do not involve the popular vote but rather through representatives drawn from their respective national assemblies.

Some distinct differences run through the nations' political systems. China is a Semi-Presidential socialist republican system that is dominated by a single party, Communist Party of China (CCP) where there is no distinct separation of power as in a democratic system (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). The party oversees almost every aspect of lives in China. Decision making takes place in the party’s political bureau (Politburo) that is made up of about 24 members (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). The system adopts a more closed policymaking strategy that involves closed council members debates as well as local experts in the field about imposing some policies on the people of China, and the output of these discussions are required to be unanimous. The electoral process in China is hierarchical. The people through the ballot vote members of the local People's Congress and the People's Congresses indirectly elect all the higher levels of People's Congresses including the National People's Congress immediately below them (Saint-Mezard & Chin, 2005). The National People's Congress is made up of 2,270 delegates elected by the provincial People's Congresses (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). Power is executed through the People’s Congresses and the local governments (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). On the other hand, India runs a democratic system with a bicameral parliament that is based on the principle of a distinct split of authority amongst the three arms of the government; the executive, legislature, and judiciary (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). Control is exercised through the three divisions of the state. It is composed of two houses. It is made up of the Council of States which comprises of 245 seats: 233 indirectly elected members by the state and territorial assemblies, 12 presidential nominees and runs for a six-year term (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). It also includes the House of the People that is made up of 545 members; 543 members directly elected through popular vote, and two presidential appointees and rules for a five-year term (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005).

Government Institutions

Executive

The Presidents and the Prime Ministers in both countries serve as members of the Executive branches where the Premiers have more powers within the governments than the Presidents. The Prime Ministers are the heads of the Executive arms in both China and India (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 222). Their core business is to execute legislation that is passed by the legislative branches of the respective governments require. Ministers who are the heads of ministries are members of the executives. The executives are both involved in the financial and economic function such as preparations of budgets, auditing, and crafting of the economic policy (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 223). The executives can declare states of emergency. They also have a similar role in crafting their respective state’s foreign policies. The executives are also supposed to maintain order.

The executives may possess some variances. In India, there is a clear split of power among the branches of the government where they tend to have their distinct roles. The executive cannot issue legislative proposals to the legislature for approvals (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). In a socialist structure like that of China, power is more centralized (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). The executive can directly pass its proposals to the legislature for approvals. In China, the Auditor General is part of the State Council, an important organ of the Executive whereas in India the Auditor General does not do the same (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005).

Legislature

In both India and China, the core business of the executive arms is to pass legislation or laws for implementation by the separate nation's executives (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). They both play an active role in the election of the presidents. The legislative organs do constitutional amendments in both countries.

The legislatures bear numerous differences. The Indian legislative arm is split into two houses (Bicameral), that is, the Lok Sabha or the House of the People, and Rajya Sabhahas or the Council of States. Lok Sabha members are elected using a popular vote by the people of India, and Rajya Sabhahas is constituted through the transferable vote in the local legislatures (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). On the hand, the Chinese national congress is unicameral, and it is referred to as the National People's Congress (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). It is established through a provincial People’s Congress. In India, the legislative branch holds regular proceedings to make laws whereas the National People’s Congress meets once a year making it the largest legislature in the world that convenes for the least number of times (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005).

Political Cultures

India and China have been through historical, political transformations. Political cultures in both have changed throughout time because of changes in eras that have occurred. Governments are formed in cycles that run for about five years (Taylor, 1987). Rapid economic changes occurred in both nations towards the end of the twentieth centuries as a result of quick political changes that were friendly to the business communities and the countries have continuously upheld those changes making the two nations to be among the most significant economies of Asia (Taylor, 1987). The two countries have their apex courts that are charged with the role of safeguarding their particular constitutions, the rights of their people, and the law (Taylor, 1987).

The cultures greatly vary. India has embraced a more federal parliamentary democratic system that follows a dual polity system of government that involves two levels of power, that is, the central authority and the states on the sidelines. China has embraced a relatively totalitarian culture of leadership that is hierarchical (Taylor, 1987). The country runs a mostly unitary government where total power execution happens from the higher ranks in the state. The political legitimacy of the government of China is not ideological but instead performance based. Sustaining the rule requires the Politburo (the legitimacy power source for China) to sets out specific goals that are to be achieved over a specified duration, for instance, economic growth goals (Taylor, 1987). The Indian government is open whereby conflicts within the arms of the state may leak to the public (Taylor, 1987). On the other hand, China operates a closed form of authority where cracks within the government are rarely accessed by the members of the society. India is a multiparty democracy that has many registered political outfits whereas China is a one-party state, the Communist Party of China (Taylor, 1987). The arms of the government in India are independent. The Supreme Court heads the Judiciary. The responsibility of the court is to protect the constitution, settle disputes between the national and the state governments, settle inter-state conflicts, and nullify any law that goes against the constitution. In China, the arms of the government are not independent. The courts are answerable to the National People's Congress.

Political Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values

India and China believe in mutual respect between countries for prosperity. They highly value humility by viewing themselves as low-lying streams flowing downwards and serve all the small states under heaven (Taylor, 1987). They put themselves at lower levels than the smaller countries. By expressing an attitude of humility to the small nations, they can procure for their favor. This approach is believed to create a win-win situation for both the minute states, but the vast country should be in a position to demonstrate deference (Taylor, 1987). The two economic powerhouses think in a world that thrives on universal harmony. They hold that an ideal world is a society that upholds global harmony. The achievement of this can happen through advocacy for mutual respect, international cooperation, peace, coexistence, and a development strategy that defends a win-win model (Guirdham 2009). The two nations have employed this value in all their foreign policies.

Their values and views, however, vary. India holds on to a capitalist view whereas China holds a socialist strategy. Capitalism bonds with economic liberty, consumer choices, and economic expansion (Balls, 2007, p. 29). It does not allow for government interference in the economy as markets ride the forces of supply and demand. It allows for private ownership of property (Guirdham 2009). The goods and services generated in the economy are supposed to earn a profit, and it can be reinvested in the marketplace. Arguably, this model of an economy cultivates inequality where a few individuals can immerse as much wealth as they can without considering others. Socialisms, on the other hand, is an economy that is state-controlled where a centralized authority governs it with the aim of a more significant social welfare and protecting businesses from fluctuations (Guirdham 2009). Socialism favors economic equality for all but slows down the economy by discouraging entrepreneurship and competition.

National Interests

National interests are the critical fueling factors for a country's foreign policies. Being neighbors, China and India may have some shared interests that may mainly arise due to geopolitical factors (Taylor, 1987). Territorial integrity, unity, and national security are some of the commonly shared welfares the two nations seek to achieve. China has in the past locked horns in the east and the South China Sea with countries such as Japan and the Philippines over maritime territorial boundaries and claims to islands (Taylor, 1987). These conflicts cut across matters of national security, territorial integrity, and state sovereignty which are critical components of China’s national interests. The country has for a long time resolve to employ peaceful, and diplomatic measures to uphold its welfares (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 230). On the other hand, prolonged tensions or even armed conflicts with the involved states over the disputes may pit territorial integrity and state dominion against China's political structure founded by the constitution and general social tranquility and basic strategies meant to enhance socio-economic development. Similarly, India banks on such perspectives to settle its disputes with Pakistan along the Line of Control (LOC), and China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The LOC and LAC boundaries are controlled by Pakistan and China respectively (Bagchi & Costa, 2012, p. 235).

There are variations in the countries’ interests. For instance, India is considered to be the biggest democratic state in the world. This government structure is meant to spread the national benefits to all its citizens with any exclusion or violence. Democracy promises power and wealth growth. India opts to prioritize its democracy drive in the future as it offers it an opportunity for peace and stable leadership. China’s political architecture as established by its constitution aims at social stability (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). It holds that their sovereignty can only be achieved through communal balance and primary precautions that ensure sustainable development on both the social and economic frontiers.

Conclusion

China and India are two Asian giants that have branded themselves the Asian economic powerhouses as result of the massive financial transformation they have experienced over the last 50 years (Saint-Mézard & Chin, 2005). Their economic growth connects to their strategic changes in political systems that encouraged more property ownership and investment. In some instances, their political landscapes may have assumed some similarities. For example, they both have established legislative arms that safeguard the rule of law by upholding their separate constitutions and human rights. On the other hand, their policies may vary, for example, the two have adopted different political systems of governments where China is communist state while India is a democratic state.







References

Bagchi, A. K., & D’Costa, A. P. (2012). Outward FDI from China and India. Transformation and Development, 220-246. Retrieved November 9, 2017.

Ball, S. (2007). The culture of China and India. Contemporary Hospitality & Tourism Management Issues in China and India, 25-36. Retrieved November 9, 2017.

Guirdham, M. (2009). Culture and business in Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Saint-Mézard, I., & Chin, J. K. (2005). China and India: political and strategic perspectives. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

Taylor, J. (1987). The dragon and the wild goose: China and India. New York: Greenwood Press.