>In a representative democracy, you wouldn't lock down and force people to starve - you would lock down and provide income/food/capabilities for people to live regardless of their social/economic status.
I didn't realize that being a rich country with a developed economy was a pre-requisite to being a representative democracy.
Providing food is far from something only developped countries can do. Very poor countries can and have done so. All you have to provide is food, shelter, and maybe a very small baseline of income.
India already has a very large and ambitious food subsidy program, which targets over 800 million beneficiaries and has cost running over 2 trillion dollars. The idea that Indian government can significantly expand its social security net in a year where it has had large unexpected out-of-budget expenditure thanks to covid and has simultaneously taken a huge hit in tax revenue due to businesses suffering due to lockdowns, seems, at least to me, based more in fantasy rather than economic reality. And then further to claim that India has failed as a democracy for that reason just seems childish hyperbole.
Hard to take GP seriously. India can even raise funds from various sources (see: PM Cares) if needed, to provide for these needs. They just don't want to, much rather line their own pockets than feed the poor (who happen to be their voting bank, but are too uneducated to vote in their own interest).
Size of PM Cares fund was estimated to be $1.23 billion dollars[1] (from May 2020, the most recent source I could find). The size of India's food subsidy program is over 2 trillion dollars.[2]
So, PM Cares fund is less that 0.1% of the amount Indian government already spends on food subsidies.
>too uneducated to vote
What's the point of education when you form your opinions with such laziness?
I didn't realize that being a rich country with a developed economy was a pre-requisite to being a representative democracy.