Which Country is more politically correct?

India is the worst country in the world politically.Unlike other states we don't get to chose our President or Prime minister.But that gives a chance for dumb people to rule.

I agree with you. All countries have bad politics. Mexico is one of the worst around.

"Politicaly correct" normally means that you do not say or do things which upset "groups" of people. Canada is thought to be naturally more "politically correct" than the US and so are other countries that had have "insult laws" and "blasphemy laws". But, are they actually "politically correct" or are they "censored". As far as politics go, every country has political issues. The best source I have found for world politics is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ Their reporters cover the globe.

I must admit, when you mentioned 'politically correct', I got the impression you were talking about people 'saying the right thing' not to offend anyone, the UK is one of the most politically correct countries around these days! But your discussion is more interesting than that. What you are asking I think is whether the US can deal effectively with its problems. I fear that the answer to that is no, the key reasons being 1) the US constitution as it is and 2) the hyper-partisanship in US politics these days which makes it impossible for the country to be governed effectively. In the UK for instance, we have parliamentary elections. However has the majority forms the Government. The Government has control over the legislature and usually can get its way and get things done. There is though I feel a lack of scrutiny of Government legislation at times, but the upper house (the House of Lords) does provide good scrutiny but cannot block Government legislation, only delay it. The problem in the US is that the President is far from being all-powerful. He is dependent on support in the both Houses of Congress. But every two years, you have elections. This means that often, in mid-term, a sitting US president finds that his party loses control of the House of Representatives, which is all up for election every 2 years. As naturally US Presidents tend to be unpopular in mid term, their party representatives in congress get a 'shellaking' in mid term, this then leads to inevitable gridlock. Then of course you have the senate where if the President's party does not have a filibuster-proof majority (ie 60 seats), his legislation becomes very vulnerable to a determined and cohesive opposition block in the Senate, as the Republicans proved over the last few years. Of course, what I have described above was also the case many years ago. However, the key difference was that many years ago, the US political system was not so polarised - politicians used to work across the aisle, the Senate indeed was a rather civil body where politicians struck deals and made friends with members of the opposition party. Now there is just hatred and bile. That is why Sen Olympia Snowe has announced her retirement. Sen Lugar was de-selected because he was seen by the Republican base to compromise too much. On the Democratic side, Sen Lieberman was also seen to be a traitor to the grass roots and announced his retirement before being pushed. The combination of the US constitution, the checks and balances that I have set out above, and the hyper-partisanship of todays US politics is deadly. That is why I have doubts that anything will be done. The only sliver of good news, if I can call it that, is that the looming fiscal cliff may concentrate the politicians minds post election. At the worst, if they can't agree anything, the automatic cuts across the board will kick in, so even if this is a very blunt instrument, at least it will signal some progress in finally addressing the US deficit!

Evanslf had a lot of good points. The most glaring however, is that as a European he has a better knowledge of our political system than do most Americans. Political correctness is nothing more than a lie. It's America's duct tape. We use it to patch all the broken pieces that we're too lazy to properly fix. To answer you're questions. I don't think any country should become more politically correct, political correctness is a coping mechanism to make the bad things we don't want to deal with go away in our minds. Referring to homeless people as indigents or fiscally challenged doesn't make them any less cold and hungry; it only makes the situation better in the minds of those who try to ignore it. Of course, this doesn't work when your government becomes fiscally challenged, experiences legislative difficulty, or doesn't function as intended. Chance at the presidency, well I'm not that rich, or rather I don't posses the proper affluence. Appealing to all people. That really is the catch of all this isn't it? If I call you fat it's an insult if I call you obese it's an astute observation? There is no appeal to all people, the parties are nearly diametrically opposed. Even if you took all the people from just one party you still couldn't appeal to all of them. We further this problem by creating a highly individualistic society on top of one that is already quite egocentric. We tend to forget quite how the world works. That now matter how much we achieve as an individual we are always stronger when we work together. It took a team of scientists to send a man to the moon, yet somehow we have the delusion that one person is going to fix all of societies problems. Even the greatest of historic leaders couldn't only do so much. Simply look at Martin Luther King. In recent history he was highly influential and a great leader of progress. His leadership changed recent history, but to this day he still doesn't appeal to all people. Decades later despite the continued perseverance of millions of Americans, this country still has a huge racial disparity. Of course, to meet our goal of political correctness, we try and politely ignore the problem hoping it will go away.