G-8 Summit and India

G-8 Summit and Role of India

Recent Development

The 31^st G-8 Summit held on June 6-8 2007 held in Germany discussed main issues like Climate change, Proliferation, Globalisation and trade and Regional Security. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended the Summit. During the sidelines of the summit he met United States President George Bush. The G-8 Summit for the year 2007 starts in Germany.. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States would participate in the Summit. The participation of five emerging economies - China, India, South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil was \the highlight of the Summit as they are accused of global warming by the G-8 countries. They are called as “Outreach Countries” and would start Heiligendamm process an initiative that will institutionalize high level dialogue between the G-8 and the five most important emerging economies, known as the O5 (Outreach 5) and the establishment of a common O5 + G8 secretariat at the OECD

These five countries are expected to become the new economic powers in the 21st century. The leaders of these emerging economies were rubbing shoulders with the leaders of eight rich and powerful nations of the world at the picturesque Baltic seaside resort in Germany.

There have been similar attempts in the past to come together by the developing countries. There was the G-77, then there was the G-15; in recent times, there was the G-4, apart from NAM, SAARC and other multilateral fora. Most of them have not been able to deliver goods and thus lost relevance with the passage of time. Will this new grouping be effective? On the face of it, it should if the leaders have the political will to do so.

Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, is annoyed at the unequal status given to outreach nations in the just concluded G-8 summit in Germany.

India has already conveyed to the German chancellor Angela Markel that next time it should get the chance to discuss the issues of its concern before the G-8.

Dr Singh said there could be no meaningful management of global issues if India and other outreach countries were not involved.

During the G-8 summit this year, India not only championed the cause of the outreach nations but also advocated for development of Africa.

Dr. Singh complained about the ambitious Millennium Development Goals, set for African countries by the G-8 nations, and said that these goals have not come up to the expectations.

G-8 Nations and their Summit

The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Together, these countries represent about 65% of the world economy.

The group's activities include year-round conferences and policy research, culminating with an annual summit meeting attended by the heads of government of the member states. The European Commission is also represented at the meetings.

Each year, member states of the G8 take turns assuming the presidency of the group. The holder of the presidency sets the group's annual agenda and hosts the summit for that year.

Group of Eight (8) was formed at the initiative of former United States Bill Clinton in 1997. This was partly a gesture of appreciation from Clinton to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who steadfastly pursued economic reforms in Russia and remained neutral to the eastward expansion of NATO.

The G8 is intended to be an informal forum, and it therefore lacks an administrative structure like those for international organizations, such as the United Nations or the World Bank

G-5 within G-8

The G-5 is a powerful group of developing countries and there is convergence of views on several issues, such as global warming and Doha round of WTO talks. Meanwhile, the Heiligendamm summit meeting revealed the cracks within the rich club, while the G-5 showed unanimity in their approach.

The G-5 felt that there could be no meaningful dialogue in the summit without the presence of India, China, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil. For the first time, these countries realised that they should have their own strategy to deal with G-8 nations on issues concerning economy and global warming. They felt that had they met prior to the summit, their shared concerns would have had more weight. Even before reaching Berlin, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expressed his doubts about the success of the summit. In fact, it was Brazil which mooted the formation of the G-5 at the Berlin meeting hosted by the Mexican President on June 7.

The G-8 watchers could not miss the India-China alliance to oppose the developed countries' efforts to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. China and India, as the world's fastest-growing economies, compete for foreign investment, access to oil and gas and diplomatic clout. The deepening cooperation between the two was, therefore, quite obvious.

At the Heiligendamm summit, the G-5 rejected the attempts made by the US to make its environmental targets and climate change goals dependent on the performance of the countries like India and China. Both Beijing and New Delhi argued that they must use more energy to lift their people from poverty, and that emissions per person are a fraction of those in rich countries. Also, both leaders told that the responsibility for tackling the greenhouse gas emissions lay with the developed countries, although the developing nations, too, would do their bit to improve the situation.

The Indian officials claim that the formation of the G-5 is not for disengaging from the G-8, but to engage with it in a more meaningful manner, besides protecting the interests of the developing countries. The idea will be taken forward in the Foreign Ministers' meeting of the G-5 in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Only time will tell whether this new group will be effective or not.

India, Climate Change and G-8 nations

Group of Eight nations reached agreement aimed at halving greenhouse gases by 2050, and the US had also signed up.This was the main highlight of the G-Summit meet

The developed nations used G-8 summit as a platform to give impetus to negotiations that would begin in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007 which would find a successor to the UN-backed Kyoto Protocol on capping greenhouse gases, which expires in 2012.

At the heart of India's position on climate change is the notion that India - whose population is predicted to reach 1.5bn by 2050 - must be allowed to pollute on a per capita basis equally with the West. The Western World wants India to do a “contribution to the broader United Nations effort” to tackle climate change.

India has 17 per cent of the world's population, it emits only four per cent of the global greenhouse gases. Per capita emissions are thus relatively small, just one-quarter of the world average, and four per cent of that in the U.S.

While the rate of growth in the gross domestic product has exceeded eight per cent a year, the rate of increase in primary energy consumption has been just 2.76 per cent.

That would imply drastic cuts in emissions in developed countries if the world is meet the target of keeping global warming within the generally agreed 'safe limit' of two degrees, as set out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The divide which will face developed and developing nations when they meet in Bali, Indonesia in December to start negotiations on a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

Despite claims of a climate change 'deal' at the G8 summit last week, the meeting only served to increase Indian irritation at being treated as "petitioners not partners" at the global top table.

India's prime minister let it be known the G8 decision to delivere their final communiqué before meeting with the G5 countries - India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - had made him question the worth of even attending the summit.

Mr Ghosh said it was now up to the world to decide how big the 'carbon pie' should be at a certain point in the future - say, 2050 - and then agree that by that date all nations should have an equal entitlement relative to their size of population.

At present, the average America citizen accounts for more than 15 times the carbon emissions of the average Indian - the average Briton seven times - while in absolute terms India's emissions are predicted to surpass those of the US in 30 years time

While US President George W. Bush has insisted that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not succeed till countries like India and China were involved, India has taken the stand that countries responsible for creating the problem of climate change in the first place should take the lead in solving the problem. The leaders of the emerging economies (0-5) which include India, China, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico have put the onus of addressing the issue of climate change with the developed countries, asking them to take the initiative by making significant cuts in their greenhouse emissions. The Indian Prime Minister has stated that developing countries should be treated as “partners and not petitioners”. The 0-5 leaders agreed to chalk out common strategies and were of the view that access to adequate technology was one of the major requirements to help them reduce emissions. The greenhouse gases emitted by developed countries is far in excess of what countries like India and China emit. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has spoken in no uncertain terms that the growth and development of developing countries should not be compromised while dealing with climate protection.

G- 8 Summit and Indo- US nuclear deal

At the sidelines of the G-8 Summit US President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and discussed the much contentious Indo-US nuclear deal that was signed in March 2006 and that was passed in the US Congress in December 2006.

Both sides are bargaining hard as they test each other's will to implement the agreement quickly. They are mobilising their energies both in bilateral talks and through media comments.

Under the deal, the U.S. has offered a one-time exception for India in the existing global non-proliferation regime so that India can keep its nuclear weapons without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Meanwhile, India is coming under increasing pressure to demonstrate its loyalty to a larger "strategic partnership". Prime Minister Manmohan Singh absented himself from an important meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, (SCO), largely because the U.S. views the SCO with suspicion and New Delhi does not want to antagonise Washington.

The SCO includes China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Two of these, Russia and China are nuclear powers while India and Pakistan, which have observer status at the SCO, are aspiring nuclear powers having carried out weapon tests in 1998.

Iran, which also has observer status and is accused by the West of trying to develop nuclear weapons, sent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Shanghai summit.

As of today, the negotiations of Indo-US deal have revealed that disagreement existed on five major issues: (a) Testing; (b) Right of return; (c) Safeguards; (d) Fuel assurances; and (e) Right to reprocess spent fuel.

When the US Congress passed the Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 in December.

The Hyde Act did redefine the nature of the "full civilian cooperation." thereby giving the impression to India that the US was shifting the goal post of July Joint Agreement. However, the Bush Administration officials like Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns asked India "not to rock the boat" and that the provision of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which forms part of the Hyde Act (Section 103) would be as 123 Agreement or bilateral agreement between the US and India that need to be worked out would be the operative part of the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation. After signing the Hyde Act, President George Bush in reference to controversial Section 103, had said "The executive branch shall construe such policy statement as advisory."

India is hoping that it could resolve some of the concerns of the Hyde Act. While negotiating the text of the 123 agreements the negotiation with American officials have been held at Washington, New Delhi, London, Cape Town since January to the current round of talks ending on June 6, 2007 in Germany

While Indian nuclear hawks run a spirited campaign against the deal as a "sellout" and a "coup" to defang India, an impressive number of U.S. Nobel laureates have issued a strong statement against the agreement.

In the nuclear poker between Washington and New Delhi, two sets of issues have become critical for settling the agreement and getting it ratified by the Congress.

One set pertains to ‘technical', but important, questions: What kind of safeguards must India accept on its civilian nuclear programme? Assuming India is allowed to import nuclear fuel, what criteria will determine how it is modified/processed, stored and/or reprocessed? What can guarantee that it will not be diverted to military uses? And under what terms the agreement can be terminated by either side?

The second issue concerns possible further nuclear testing by India. Must it sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or a bilateral agreement with the U.S. not to conduct future tests? Or will a voluntary moratorium of the kind declared in 1998 and reiterated in the July 2005 accord do?

Ideally, the U.S. would like India to offer something more than the July assurance so that the deal can pass relatively smoothly through the Congress: e.g. a legally binding commitment not to conduct a nuclear blast.

But India flatly rejects this. It wants to keep the moratorium voluntary. Such a moratorium can easily be rescinded. Under existing U.S. laws, a country that conducts a nuclear test automatically attracts sanctions and forfeits civilian cooperation with the U.S.

These issues will figure in the coming round of talks next month. Both sides are proceeding with cautious optimism.

India's options here are extremely limited. For all practical purposes, the Manmohan Singh government cannot amend or go beyond its understanding of the nuclear deal recorded in the Jul. 18 agreement, which notifies as "civilian" only 14 out of its 22 power reactors (under operation or construction).

However, the Bush administration may not find it possible to pilot the agreement through unless it is seen to have extracted an additional assurance from India against further tests.

New Delhi is under pressure from its nuclear super hawks to test a hydrogen (thermonuclear or fusion) bomb so as to have a powerful deterrent not just against Pakistan, but against the major nuclear powers which have such weapons. It has conducted five tests of the less powerful, but immensely destructive, fission bomb.
India, meanwhile, has opened yet another front in the negotiations. It demands that it be allowed to build a stockpile of nuclear fuel for each of its civilian reactors. This would guarantee that supply of imported fuel would continue uninterrupted.

After India's first (1974) nuclear blast, the U.S. suspended supply of lightly enriched uranium to two of India's reactors at Tarapur. "Although the Indian government cites this as the reason for demanding the ‘strategic stockpile' guarantee, the real reason may be more complex", says Kamal Mitra Chenoy of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and a member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. "India is desperately short of uranium. Its sole operating uranium mine is running out of ore and there is public opposition to opening new mines."

The current negotiations between the U.S. and India are focused on what is called the "123 agreement", pertaining to an amendment of Section 123 of the U.S. atomic energy act dealing with nuclear exports. This is likely to be "marked up" soon in the form of bills to be voted by both Houses. This is expected to set the stage for passing the substantive "nuclear cooperation" agreement inked last July.

The bill's passage may not be smooth. There is significant opposition to the deal in the House of Representatives and from non-proliferation experts. Indian-American groups as well as the Indian government's lobbying agencies are working furiously to garner support for the deal.

Eminent scholars and scientists in the U.S have now joined opposition to the deal. As many as 37 Nobel laureates have urged the Congress not to approve the deal "in its current form" because it is a "formula for destroying American non-proliferation goals."

In a letter, supported by the pro-peace federation of American scientists, they argue that the agreement "weakens the existing non-proliferation regime without providing an acceptable substitute. Since nothing is more important to U.S. security than blocking further proliferation and possible use of nuclear weapons, the lawmakers should withhold their seal of approvalà"

The laureates include the distinguished economist Kenneth J. Arrow and scientists Raul Christian Lauterbur, Alfred Goodman Gilman, Roger Guilemin and Donald A. Glaser.

Interestingly, their letter criticises Washington's nuclear weapons doctrine too: the U.S. cannot continue to treat nuclear weapons as "militarily useful and politically salient while expecting to stop global nuclear proliferation. The Indian nuclear deal is just one symptom of a bigger problem."

It also holds that the rapid growth of civilian nuclear power would increase the amount of fissionable material stored worldwide, and the number of facilities that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

As the United States and India held yet another round of intensive talks this week to flesh out the landmark nuclear deal they signed in July, it became clear that they will both explore how far they can push each other for concessions that would ease Congressional approval.

Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Mohammed El-Baradei has weighed in on the side of the deal, and termed it "a creative break with the past." He says it would be illogical to deny civil nuclear technology to India --a country that has "not violated any legal commitment and never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation" and is "a valued partner and a trusted contributor to international peace and security."

"This only casts doubt on the impartiality and credibility of the IAEA as a global nuclear watchdog," holds academic and anti-nuclear activist Chenoy.

On conducting a nuclear test, the Indian officials seem to have indicated that there was no way India could commit itself not to test. Yet there is some indication that on this issue a compromise formula is being attempted. Nevertheless this issue involves the sovereignty and security of the country. Indeed American officials have repeatedly indicated that current strategic partnership with India has been to make India power.

Our neighbourhood is surrounded by untrustworthy nations. The relation of China with Pakistan, supply of magnetic rings to Pakistan, transfer of Korean missile technology to Pakistan and the unresolved Sino-Indian border dispute are the threats to Indian security. For the US the threat is only from the terrorists but for India it is from the terrorists and the countries funding and abetting them directly or indirectly plus nuclear blackmail from China and Pakistan combined.

Compromising on this issue is akin to compromising with the security of nation in the long term.

Section 123(a)(4) of the US Atomic Energy Act gives the US government the right to require the return of any nuclear material and equipment transferred under this deal and any special materials produced through the use thereof, if India conducts nuclear test or terminated or abrogates the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. Presently, the Hyde Act does not exempt India from this clause. However, there are suggestions of setting up a consultative mechanism that gets into action in case of nuclear devise thereby to reduce complete breaking down of the right to return clause.

On the other key issue of reprocessing of spent fuel right, the American officials have conceded that neither the Hyde Act nor any other law prevents US from giving consent on reprocessing to India. All that the US Atomic Energy Act and Hyde Act seek that India would have to get the consent of US for reprocessing

PM Manmohan Singh was playing the political card when he told the members of the G8, the group of eight industrialised nations, at Heiligendamm earlier this month that "we have come here not as petitioners but as partners."

It was obvious that India and the four other rising economies, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, which make up the G-5, were miffed that the G8 declaration issued a day before their joint meeting had already laid out the terms of a purported agreement on ways to counter climate change. Much as the world's rich nations that comprise the G8, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Japan, France, Russia, Italy, and Canada, would like to co-opt the G-5 in the plan to reduce carbon emissions around the world, it was quite evident that none of the five was happy being told to go easy on carbon emissions.

"We have not come here to discuss targets or accept internationally enforced targets on us," Dr. Singh said at the meeting. But in an interaction with the German Chancellor and summit host, Angela Merkel, he did say that the developing nations would accept their responsibilities. "We can assure the world that at no time, our per capita emissions will exceed that of the developed countries."

He went on to add, "This will act as a two-way incentive. If the developed countries do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions per capita, we will also reward them by doing more."

Dr. Singh might have been tempted to tell the leaders of the developed world to first reduce their consumption of fossil fuel before lecturing others. Of course he and his colleagues on the G5 did emphasise the larger role the developed world had in addressing climate change "given their responsibilities in causing it." But one must compliment him for going beyond the rhetoric and offering to do some corrections at home. A country on the road to development will get there quicker and more certainly if it chooses the more efficient energy route.

For India, the time for choosing is now. Take electricity: nearly two billion units (kilowatt hours) of electricity are consumed every day across the country; two-thirds of this energy spins out of some 380 thermal plants that burn coal. It would be heartening if in the future there can be a quantum jump in the availability of renewable energy from wind turbines, hydropower, or solar cells, but in practical terms, these sources are unlikely to scale up sufficiently quickly to help electricity grids cope with the surge in demand. Much of the burden will continue to rest on coal.

The Energy Loss

Over 320 million tonnes of coal was burnt in 2006-07 to produce electricity, a lot of it in power stations owned by State electricity boards whose boilers are not terribly efficient in extracting the energy in the coal. Critical appraisals show some of these power plants have a thermal efficiency (a measure of how much electrical energy they can extract from coal) of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. (Source: NTPC presentation to the IEA, 2004) Take out the energy used in running the power plant, estimated to be 8.5 per cent of energy that is generated, (source: Central Electricity Authority) and the losses in transmission and distribution (about 20 per cent), the other example of crushing inefficiency in the electricity system, just about 14 per cent to 22 per cent of the energy in the coal finally reaches the plug point in your home.

And in the evening when you switch on the light, typically a 60 W incandescent bulb, in your living room, the decisive wastage takes place. The bulb uses just 10 per cent of the energy to light up the room; the other 90 per cent is released as heat.

So just 1.4 per cent to 2.2 per cent of the energy that once was in the coal turns up as the light that you want.

In contrast, modern thermal plants are now capable of a thermal efficiency in excess of 40 per cent, they consume only about 5 per cent in-station, and if transmission and distribution losses can be contained at levels prevalent in developed countries, up to 35 per cent of the energy in the coal can be served up as electricity to the consumer.

This implies that if all plants and transmission lines are upgraded — obviously the vintage units are beyond makeover and need to be shut down — the country can make do with just two-thirds of the coal that it currently burns. Emissions will drop proportionately.

However, if such corrective action is not launched, the scenario will get bleaker.

Already the availability of electricity is 10 per cent short of demand and just about half the population has access to it. A 57 per cent increase in capacity is needed over the next five years to meet the anticipated energy needs of an economy growing at around 8 per cent a year and the other half of the populace aspiring to join the bandwagon.

Some 542 million tonnes of coal will be required each year by 2012 to meet the demand for electricity. Coalmines in the country may not be able to produce enough; imports may be necessary and will be costly in a global market where supplies are taut. The additional load of carbon emissions may be embarrassingly large

Democracy in Sub-Continent

Democracy in Indian Sub-Continent


Bangladesh on March 26, 2007 observes Independence Day and National Day and it is time to review the status of democracy not only in Bangladesh but also in whole of sub-continent. Now to start up, a general view of the democracy all across the world.

Over view of democracy all across the world

The definition of democracy is simple, the rule of the people, but great complexity and diversity has arisen from the varied concepts used at different periods of history and in different countries.

This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2007, which reports the state of world freedom in 2006.

██ Free. Freedom House considers these to be liberal democracies. ██ Partly Free ██ Not
Free

No of countries with Democracy – 138


Albania
Emerging democracy
America(USA)
federal republic
Andorra
Parliamentary democracy
Argentina
Multi-party republic
Armenia
Multi-party republic
Aruba
Parliamentary democracy
Australia
Democratic constitutional monarchy
Austria
Federal republic
Azerbaijan
Multi-party republic
B

The Bahamas
Parliamentary representative democratic monarchy
Bangladesh
Parliamentary democracy Since: 1990 as of now under emergency
Barbados
Parliamentary democracy
Belgium
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Belize
Parliamentary democracy
Benin
Multi-party republic
Bermuda
Parliamentary British overseas territory with internal self-government
Bolivia
Multi-party republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Emerging republic
Botswana
Parliamentary republic
Brazil
Federal republic
Bulgaria
Parliamentary democracy
Burkina Faso
Parliamentary democracy
C

Canada
Parliamentary democracy/constitutional monarchy
Cambodia
Multi-party democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Cape Verde
Multi-party republic
Chile
Multi-party republic
Colombia
Multi-party republic
Comoros
Multi-party republic
Cook Islands
Self-governing parliamentary democracy
Costa Rica
Democratic republic
Croatia
Presidential/Parliament democracy
Cyprus
Multi-party republic
Czech Republic
Parliamentary democracy
D

Denmark
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Dominica
Parliamentary democracy
Dominican Republic
Democracy
E

Ecuador
Multi-party republic
El Salvador
Multi-party republic
Estonia
Parliamentary republic
Ethiopia
Federal republic
F

Fiji
Multi-party republic
Finland
Multi-party republic
France
Multi-party republic
G

Gabon
Multi-party republic
Georgia
Multi-party republic
Germany
Federal/Multi-party republic
Ghana
Constitutional democracy
Greece
Parliamentary republic
Greenland
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Grenada
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Guatemala
Democratic republic
Guinea-Bissau
Multi-party republic
Guyana
Multi-party republic
H

Honduras
Democratic republic
Hungary
Parliamentary democracy
I

Iceland
Democracy
India
Federal multi-party republic
Indonesia
Multi-party republic
Iraq
Parliamentary democracy
Ireland
Multi-party republic
Isle of Man
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Israel
Parliamentary democracy
Italy
Multi-party republic
J

Jamaica
Parliamentary democracy
Japan
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
K

Kiribati
Multi-party republic
Korea (South)
Multi-party republic
Kyrgyzstan
Multi-party republic
L

Latvia
Democracy
Lesotho
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Liberia
Emerging democracy
Liechtenstein
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Luxembourg
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Lithuania
Parliamentary democracy
M

Macedonia
Parliamentary democracy
Madagascar
Multi-party republic
Malawi
Parliamentary democracy
Malaysia
Federal constitutional elective monarchy
Malta
Multi-party republic
Marshall Islands
Constitutional government
Mauritius
Parliamentary democracy
Mexico
Federal republic
Micronesia
Constitutional government
Moldova
Multi-party republic
Monaco
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Mongolia
Democracy
Montenegro
Multi-party republic
Mozambique
Multi-party republic
N

Namibia
Multi-party republic
Nauru
Multi-party republic
New Zealand
Democratic constitutional monarchy
The Netherlands
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
The Netherlands Antilles
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Nicaragua
Multi-party republic
Niue
Self-governing parliamentary democracy
Northern Mariana Islands
Self-governing with locally elected governor, lieutenant governor and legislature
Norway
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
P

Pakistan
Parliamentary democracy under a Federation/Islamic Republic
Palau
Constitutional government in free association with the U.S.A.
Panama
Democracy
Papua New Guinea
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Paraguay
Multi-party republic
Peru
Multi-party republic
The Philippines
Multi-party republic
Poland
Multi-party republic
Portugal
Democracy
R

Romania
Multi-party republic
Russia
Federal republic
S

Saint Kitts and Nevis
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Saint Lucia
Parliamentary democracy
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Parliamentary democracy
Samoa
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
San Marino
Multi-party republic
São Tomé and Príncipe
Multi-party republic
Senegal
Multi-party republic
Serbia
Multi-party republic
Seychelles
Multi-party republic
Sierra Leone
Constitutional democracy
Singapore
Democracy
Slovakia
Parliamentary democracy
Slovenia
Parliamentary republic
Solomon Islands
Parliamentary democracy
South Africa
Multi-party republic
Spain
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Sri Lanka
Multi-party republic
Suriname
Democracy
Sweden
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Switzerland
Multi-party republic/Direct democracy
T

Taiwan
Democracy
Trinidad and Tobago
Parliamentary democracy
Tuvalu
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Turkey
Parliamentary democracy
U

Ukraine
Multi-party republic
United Kingdom
Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Uruguay
Multi-party republic
United States of America
Federal republic
V

Vanuatu
Parliamentary republic
Venezuela
Democratic republic

Democracy in Indian sub-continent

Indian sun-continent has been witness to countless number of invasions starting from the Aryan invasion to the British colonial imperialism. Countless invasions and rules made the sub-continent more disintegrated and had made the regions with multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi- social and multi-religious region. Democracy – a product left over by the British after granting freedom to sub-continent failed to make an ever-lasting impact in the sub-continent except for India and Srilanka. The other countries Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan have had mixed bag of democracy.


S NO
Country
Status of Democracy
1
India
Stable except for dark period during emergency in 1975-77
2
Pakistan
Unstable democracy even elected government reel under constant fear of military coup
3
Nepal
Elected government is likely to take guard from monarch. Elections due to be held in June
4
Bhutan
Threshold of democracy
5
Bangladesh
Democracy under constant threat, elections were suspended which were on due on January 22, 2007 As of now in a state of emergency
6
Sri Lanka
Stable democracy, though the threat of military take over if the civil war gets out of control cannot be ruled out


Democracy in India Overview

India is the second most populous country, and the most populous liberal democracy in the world. Though democracy was a product of colonial imperilalism the roots of democracy lies deep embedded in the Indian system. Probabaly the oldest insitutions of democracy, the Panchayat Raj Sytem started in India and specifically in Indian villages. It is no surpise that India – stands tall among other countries not only in the Sub-continent but all across the world in its symbol of democracy.

Parliamentary System

The legislature of India is the bicameral Parliament, which consists of the upper house called the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the lower house called the Lok Sabha (House of People).

The Rajya Sabha has up to 250 members serving staggered six year terms. Most are elected indirectly by the state and territorial legislatures in proportion to the state's population.

The Lok Sabha's 545 members are directly elected by popular vote to represent individual constituencies for five year terms.

For most of its democratic history, the Government of India has been led by the Indian National Congress (INC). State politics have been dominated by several national parties including INC, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI) and various regional parties.

From 1950 to 1990, the INC enjoyed a parliamentary majority barring two brief periods.
But Congress tried to experminent with the concept of democracy with the imposition of emergency which led to the formation of first ever non-Congress government in India when the Janata Party won the election owing to public discontent with the "Emergency.

A Janata Dal coalition, called the National Front, won elections in 1989 but managed to stay in power for only two years.

The years 1996-1998 were a period of turmoil in the federal government with several short-lived alliances holding sway.

The BJP formed a government briefly in 1996, followed by the United Front coalition. In 1998, the BJP formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) with several regional parties, and became the first non-Congress government to complete a full five-year term.

In the 2004 Indian elections the Indian National Congress won the largest number of Lok Sabha seats and formed a government with a coalition called the United Progressive Alliance, supported by a various left-leaning parties and members opposed to the BJP.

Democracy in Pakistan

The Muslim League formed Pakistan's first government under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan in 1947. The Muslim League's leadership of Pakistani politics decreased significantly with the rise of other political parties, with the Pakistan People's Party in West Pakistan, and the Awami League in East Pakistan, which would ultimately lead to the creation of Bangladesh.

The first Constitution of Pakistan was adopted in 1956, but was suspended in 1958 by Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1973, suspended in 1977 by Zia-ul-Haq, was re-instated in 1991 and is the country's most important document, laying the foundations of government.

Pakistan is a federal democratic republic with Islam as the state religion. The semi-presidential system includes a bicameral legislature consisting of a 100-member Senate and a 342-member National Assembly. The President is the Head of State and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and is elected by an electoral college.

The prime minister is usually the leader of the largest party in the National Assembly. Each province has a similar system of government with a directly elected Provincial Assembly in which the leader of the largest party or alliance becomes Chief Minister. Provincial Governors are appointed by the President.

The Pakistani military has played an influential role in mainstream politics throughout Pakistan's history, (Politics of Pakistan) with military presidents ruling from 1958–71, 1977–88 and from 1999 onwards. The leftist Pakistan People's Party (PPP), led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, emerged as a major political player during the 1970s.

Under the military rule of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan began a marked shift from the British-era secular politics and policies, to the adoption of Shariat and other laws based on Islam. During the 1980s, the anti-feudal, pro-Muhajir Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) was started by unorthodox and educated urban dwellers of Sindh and particularly Karachi.


The 1990s were characterized by coalition politics dominated by the PPP and a rejuvenated Muslim League. Following the defeat in Kargil in 1999 the army headed by Prevez Musharaff took the power seat de-throning the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by a coup.

In the October 2002 general elections, the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) (PML-Q) won a plurality of National Assembly seats with the second-largest group being the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), a sub-party of the PPP. Zafarullah Khan Jamali of PML-Q emerged as Prime Minister but resigned on 26 June 2004 and was replaced by PML-Q leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain as interim Prime Minister.


On 28 August 2004 the National Assembly voted 191 to 151 to elect the Finance Minister and former Citibank Vice President Shaukat Aziz as Prime Minister. Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of Islamic religious parties, won elections in North-West Frontier Province, and increased their representation in the National Assembly.

Democaracy in Nepal

Nepal splintered and coalesced under a variety of absolute rulers, Nepal became a constitutional monarchy in 1990. However, the monarchy retained many important and ill-defined powers.

This arrangement was marked by increasing instability, both in the parliament and, since 1996, in large swathes of the country that have been fought over by Maoist insurgents. The Maoists, alienated from mainstream political parties, went underground and started a guerrilla war against both monarchy and mainstream political parties.

They have sought to overthrow feudal institutions, including the monarchy, and establish a Maoist state. This led to the Nepalese Civil War in which more than 15,000 people have died.

On the pretext of quashing the insurgents, the king closed down the parliament and sacked the elected prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of Nepali Congress (Democratic) in 2002 and started ruling through prime ministers appointed by him. He then unilaterally declared a state of emergency early in 2005, and assumed all executive powers.

Following the 2006 democracy movement, the king agreed to relinquish the sovereign power back to the people and reinstated the dissolved House of Representatives on April 24, 2006. Using its newly acquired sovereign authority, on May 18, 2006, the newly resumed House of Representatives unanimously passed a motion to curtail the power of the king and declared Nepal a secular state. As of September, 2006, a complete rewrite of the country's constitution was still expected to happen in the near future.

Turblunet Violence in Nepal

On June 1, 2001, the Heir Apparent Dipendra went on a killing spree in the royal palace, in response to his parents' rejection of his choice of wife. His parents were killed and he died three days later. Following the carnage, the throne was inherited by Birendra's brother Gyanendra. In the face of unstable governments and a Maoist siege on the Kathmandu Valley in August 2004, popular support for the monarchy waned.

On February 1, 2005 Gyanendra dismissed the entire government and assumed full executive powers in the name of combating the Maoist movement. In September 2005, the Maoists declared a three-month unilateral ceasefire which was not reciprocated by the royal government; the latter vowed to defeat the rebels by force. A few weeks later, the government stated that parliamentary elections would be held by 2007 even after the failed municipal elections,

On January 14, 2006 the Maoists attacked 5 military and paramilitary installations throughout the Kathmandu Valley. Bombs were detonated in two of the locations. 12 people died, 11 at the Thankot checkpost where multiple blasts shook homes as far away as Matatheirtha. The public was shocked as this was proof that the moaists where able to organize and plan a simultaneous attack on multiple locations within the Valley, long considered to be relatively safe from Maoist Violence. During the attack on the Thankot checkpost, a local toll station was robbed, this toll station is was less than 100 meters away from an orphanage housing 64 children.

The Maoists, through support from the seven parliamentary parties (SPA), arranged a mass uprising against the reign of King Gyanendra. The royal government used various means to quell the uprising. Frustrated by lack of security, jobs and good governance, thousands of people took to the streets to demand that the king renounce power outright, but the royal government turned even more ferocious and continued its suppression, including daytime curfews amid a Maoist blockade. Food shortages took effect. Soon there was a plan to hold a march with over one million people into the city center and encircle the royal palace. The security forces turned brutal. Thousands were injured and 21 people died in the uprising.


On April 21, 2006, Gyanendra announced that he was giving up absolute power and that "Power was being returned to the People". He called on the seven party coalitions to name a Prime Minister and that elections would be held as soon as possible. Both the U.S. and India immediately called on the SPA to accept this proposal. Many Nepalese protesters, however, still carried out rallies in numerous cities and vowed to continue the stir until they would achieve complete abolishment of the monarchy.

Following Gyanendra's relinquishing of absolute power, the Nepalese government and Maoist rebels agreed on a ceasefire. In August 2006, both parties came to an agreement on the issue of arms accountability, agreeing to ask the United Nations to oversee and keep track of the weapons cache of both sides. The government and the Maoists are trying to come to an agreement on the future of the monarchy.

As of 21 November 2006, Maoists and the Seven Party Alliance signed a peace deal. The agreement is intended to end the Nepalese Civil War, which has claimed more than 13,000 lives to date.

As of 15 January 2007, SPA and Maoists serve together in an Interim legislature under the new Interim Constitution of Nepal awaiting elections to take place in June 2007 to a Constituent Assembly, while all the powers of the Nepali King are in abeyance.

The April movement of 2006 brought about a change in the nation. The autocratic King was forced to give up power. The dissolved House of Representatives was restored. The House of Representatives formed a government which had successful peace talks with the Maoist Rebels. An interim constitution was promulgated and an interim House of Representatives was formed with Maoist members. The number of seats were also increased to 330.

Democracy in Bangladesh

Bangladesh got independence from the rule of West Pakistan on March 26, 1971. Though the Bangladesh movement was started against the military leadership in West Pakistan it falied to provide impetus of democracy in Bangladesh after it got liberated. Bangladesh frequently say Military rule and imposition of emergency largely due to the social unrest in the country.

Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy. The President is the head of state, a largely ceremonial post. The real power is held by the Prime Minister, who is the head of government. The president is elected by the legislature every five years and has normally limited powers that are substantially expanded during the tenure of a caretaker government, mainly in controlling the transition to a new government.

The two major parties in Bangladesh are the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Awami League. BNP finds its allies among Islamist parties like Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh and Islami Oikya Jot, while Awami League aligns with leftist and secularist parties. Another important player is the Jatiya Party, headed by former military ruler Ershad. The Awami League-BNP rivalry has been bitter and punctuated by protests, violence and murder.

Two radical Islamist parties, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) and Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), were banned in February 2005. Bomb attacks taking place since 1999 have been blamed on those groups, and hundreds of suspected members have been detained in numerous security operations, including the head the of those two parties in 2006. The first recorded case of a suicide bomb attack in Bangladesh took place in November 2005.

Latest crisis for Democracy in Bangladesh

The 2006–2007 Bangladeshi political crisis began in October 2006 when a caretaker government — designated by the constitution to oversee the vote — assumed power without exhausting the provisions of selection of Chief of Caretaker government at the end of October to steer the country through parliamentary elections. Increasing violence stemmed from an expected but decisive announcement by the Awami League — and around 18 smaller parties allied to it — made on 3 January 2007 stating that they would boycott the general election scheduled to be held on 22 January 2007 questioning its fairness and non-availability of correct voters list.

The main reason for the on-going political crisis is preplanned politicalisation of civil administration, election commission and defense force command to trap opposition into a predetermined elections results. This stemmed from a bitter rivalry between the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The BNP-led government stepped down in October at the end of their term. Although the caretaker government was appointed immediately afterwards, Awami League and its allies maintained their position regarding the fairness of the upcoming election. Violence erupted throughout the country, killing more than 40 people

On January 11, 2007, the United Nations and the European Union suspended their election monitoring operations because they felt that conditions for a credible vote did not exist.[2] In a statement, the EU said, "The European Commission has decided to suspend its Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Bangladesh covering the parliamentary elections on 22nd January.

The European Commission has called back the long-term observers already on the ground, and will not deploy the other phases of its observation mission, which was due to be led by MEP Alexander Graf Lambsdorff."[3] A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that "The political crisis in Bangladesh has severely jeopardized the legitimacy of the electoral process. On the same day as the UN and EU withdrawal from the election procedures, chief advisor of the caretaker government Iajuddin Ahmed (the current president) announced a state of emergency in Bangladesh after weeks of political crisis over the upcoming elections, implementing a late night to early morning (11 p.m. to 5 a.m.) curfew.

The army, in the tradition of guardian coups has stepped in with the usual list of apparently noble goals . Within hours of the state of emergency declaration, President Ahmed announced his resignation as chief advisor, as well as the postponement of the scheduled election. Prior to his own, he accepted the resignations of nine of the ten advisors of the caretaker government. The remaining advisor on the board Fazlul Haque was then appointed by President Ahmed as the interim chief advisor.

Democracy in Bhutan

Bhutan has been a monarchy since 1907. The different dzongkhags were united under the leadership of the Trongsa Penlop. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who has made some moves toward constitutional government, announced in December 2005 that he would abdicate in 2008.


Bhutan in 2004 year unveiled a 34-point constitution and the same was sent to some 530,000 citizens for their views.

The new constitution was presented in early 2005 which will be put up for ratification by a referendum before coming into force. In December 2005, Jigme Singye Wangchuck announced that he would abdicate the throne in his son's favour in 2008 (News, views and events leading to 2008. On December 14, 2006, he stunned his countrymen by announcing that he would be abdicating immediately. The early abdication of Jigme Singye may have been related to internal pressures placed on him related to recent Chinese incursions into Bhutanese territory

Bhutan is preparing to usher historic changes by introducing the parliamentary democracy in 2008, works are in full swing and political parties are now legal. The Judicial power is vested in all the courts of Bhutan. The Chief Justice is the administrative head of the Judiciary. The existing paper currency or denomination notes of Bhutan which of course is in Ngultrums is being revised and new notes are developed to replace the existing old ones. As of now, Denominations of Ngultrum one and Mgultrum five have been introduced. Coins are also very much in use in Bhutan.
By December 2007 Bhutanese voters would have already been to the polls thrice, once to vote for the National Council and twice for the Nationwide Parliamentary Mock elections.
The first real voting experience would come with the elections of the 20 members from the dzongkhags to the National Council in fall this year. Voters will have to cast their vote in the polling booth assigned within the constituency where they have registered to vote.
Unlike elections to the National Assembly, each dzongkhag would be a National Council constituency and will elect one Thuemi representing that dzongkhag, according to election commission officials.


Democray in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka has enjoyed a stable democracy and continuous economic progress, despite the ongoing conflict between the Sri Lankan government and a separatist militant group known as the LTTE in the northeastern parts of the country. Presidential elections in Sri Lanka were held latest on 17 November 2005. Prime minister Mahinda Rajapaksa defeated former prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and took office on November 19, 2005.



Civil War in Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan Civil War is an ongoing conflict on the island-nation of Sri Lanka. Since the 1983, there has been on-and-off civil war, predominantly between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) also known as the Tamil Tigers), a separatist militant organization who fight to create an independent state named Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island. It is estimated that the war has claimed the lives of more than 68,000 people since 1983 and it has caused significant harm to the population and economy of the country, as well as leading to the ban of the LTTE as a terrorist organization across much of the developed world including in the United States, the European Union and Canada. Hopes of a lasting peace were raised when a cease-fire was declared in December 2001, and a ceasefire agreement was signed with international mediation in 2002. However renewed hostilities broke out in late 2005 and have continued to escalate, resulting in the deaths of over 4,000 people since November 2005.