Posted on 07/04/2012 11:02:03 AM PDT by Jyotishi
It is great to be at world's largest democracy to celebrate the birthday of world's oldest democracy -- this was how US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell described America's Independence Day celebrations here.
Addressing the gathering at the American centre, she said, "my belief is that we have much in common and India and US are very-very close with people.
"We had shared colonial heritage and we each had struggled for our Independence and for our freedom," she said.
Powell said both the democracies are vibrant and diverse and our relationship is flourishing.
"You, the youth of India and also those in the US, celebrating today have important role in strengthening democracy and civil society to ensure progress and development," the Ambassador said.
Muslims are probably about 17-20 percent of the population in India.
Sir, thank you very much for your input.
US is both a democracy and a republic.
Democracy as opposed to Dictatorship and Republic as opposed to Monarchy.
Same with India.
Nothing there becomes law without her signature. Even the Prime Minister doesn't have that power.
Republics such as Israel, following the Parliamentary system often appoint their presidents rather than elect them, but nobody would suggest that they are not representative democracies...
That, like our presidency here in the U.S., would be an indirect democracy which is clearly a type of democracy. The U.K. uses a hereditary monarchy to choose their head of state, and there is nothing democratic about it.
The Queen’s power to refuse to sign legislation is there in theory, but then again, since the 1688 Bill of Rights was concocted, monarchs only sit upon the throne by the permission of Parliament, so if the Queen tried to rule against the express will of Parliament, Parliament could declare her deposed and put someone else on the throne instead, or even abolish the monarchy entirely.
At least in Britain, most members of the cabinet are elected public officials, last time I checked, the US President appoints people who are not members of any legislative body.
Not saying that there is anything wrong with this though, there is such a thing as too much democracy....
Well if Parliament ever gets around to doing all that, the U.K. will finally get to be a democracy!
At least in Britain, most members of the cabinet are elected public officials, last time I checked, the US President appoints people who are not members of any legislative body.
In the United States, cabinet members are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. It is absurd to think that governmental department heads need to be elected to regional offices and serve simultaneously in completely different types of roles.
Not saying that there is anything wrong with this though, there is such a thing as too much democracy....
Then we can agree that it's a shame that the U.K. uses an antiquated hereditary monarchy instead of a democracy to chose its head-of-state and legislative authority!
No, not really. I and most Britons are extremely happy with our constitutional monarchy, she is a far superior head of state to that numpty you have in the White House...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.