1

1

Indian Democracy Problems and solutions

Dedicated to Bharat Matha -

My beloved Motherland

By- Sudhakaran

Cheravattail, Narayanamangalam,

Pulloot, Pin-680663, Trichur, Kerala, India.

Tel: +91 480 280 4452, 9745821113

Email: sudhakaranck@gmail.com

Web: www.greatindiatrust.org

Yahoogroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ourgreatindia

2

2

Contents

Page No.

Preface 4 Hypocrisy, Sycophancy & Cowardice National Trait 17

1. Flawed General Perception 6

Confusing Political System with Economic Policy 8

Complacence/cynicism 8

Awareness 9

Moral decay/Low Morale 10

Corruption 11

Selfishness 12

Ethnic Schism/Communalism 13

Conclusion 15

2. Basic symptoms 16

Character crisis in political leadership. 16

Hypocrisy, Sycophancy & Cowardice Nationl trait 17

Proliferation of political parties 18

Coalition politics: 19

Political Instability 20

Intermittent Elections 21

3. Basic Causes and Solutions 21

Pseudo- & Perverted Democracy 22

Party whip 23

American contrast 23

Inner-party Democracy. 25

Character-crisis: 27

Splits in parties 27

3

3

Perils of Westminster parliament system 28

Indirect Election of Chief Exe. 28

Evaluation of potential candidates 30

Inefficiency & Susceptibility to Coercion 31

Bangladesh example /Highjacking of state 32

Direct election/presidential form 33

Electioneering – President/Chief Executive 34

Elections (by Simple majority) to legislature 34

Distortion of proportions 35

Coalitions - pre-poll 35

Proliferation of parties (due to pre poll coalitions): 36

Exaggeration of our inherent schisms 37

Dwarfing politicians 37

Pampering one’s own constituency 38

MP’s/MLA’s Fund - denial of equal opportunity 39

Poll Violence 39

Instability through hung parliaments 39

Proportional Representation/List system 40

Proportional rep. suitable for our society: 41

4. Constitutional Review 42

Arguments raised against Presidential System 45

Annexer 1 45

Annexer 2

Annexer 3

5. How to Achieve these objectives 48

4

4

Preface I have always been aspiring to hold my head high and declare to the world: ‘I am a proud

citizen of a strong and prosperous India – a Great India’. But, even though we had all the

ingredients to become a world leader in almost every field, unfortunately I never got a

chance to do so yet. And it has dawned that I cannot hope to attain that cherished goal as far

as the present political system continues to exist. I am, as almost all other patriots are,

disgusted by the way our political leaders are leading us in a degenerative path from one

ridiculous fiasco to another.

Almost all of us have read many article or heard speeches or debates on the malaises of our

society; even partook in the efforts for the eradication of the perceived malaises to

regenerate the society; but have been getting frustrated by the futility of such efforts. My

argument is: all such articles, debates and efforts were targeted at the symptoms not the

cause of the degeneration; and hence the failure. All of them had been taking one or the

other symptom of the degeneration and harping up on it as if it is the biggest villain and the

basic cause of the degeneration, magnifying it out of all proportions obscuring the real

causes. My effort here is to cut down the symptoms to its real size to expose and address

the real causes.

Political instability and inefficiency are appalling. We are always in an election mood –

parliamentary, legislative, mid-term and/or omnipresent by-elections, pushing all the

developmental works to backburner and wasting precious time and resources. Our chief

executive, head of the government, mostly a pawn/benami of a caucus, is inescapably

susceptible to coercion by such caucuses and pressure groups to sanction their self-serving

schemes – mostly nefarious and detrimental to national interest.

Degeneration of our society is manifested in almost all fields of life. Corruption is rampant.

Our national trait has become synonymous with Sycophancy, Hypocrisy, Cowardice -

‘Hindu Cowardice’ of Khandahar fiasco fame - and incompetence. Even after 50 years of

independence illiteracy, poverty, poor-infrastructure and over all backwardness are still

poignantly staring us. A nation of abundant natural resources, a rich heritage and a billion

people has not established – leave alone leadership but even a credible presence in any field

5

5

of competence among the nations. Surely we have made some progress and a few pockets

of affluence also. But that is nowhere near our potentials or the desired levels when

compared to the achievements and standards of other nations with much less potentials.

Our society is, as our politics is, a divided house today. Instead of national integration we

seems to be heading with accelerated speeds to disintegration. After the post-

Independence euphoria, when we dreamt that caste has been cast-off, the

course of democratic India has seen the resurgence of caste in the politics

through the decades, with caste awareness reaching a detrimental high in the

post-Mandal 1990s. Hundreds of regional, religious and caste groups, the disintegrative

forces, have proliferated, organized themselves as political parties and gained undue

prominence.

These parties, to create and maintain their vote banks are pandering to, adding-fire to, our

communal/regional and other savage passions of all nuances, always reminding us of

schisms of our diversity and driving wedges in these ruptures. National political parties

have degenerated to impotence and have become subservient to these small regional or

communal parties. Today there is not a single National Party that claims to have sufficient

public support, can get sufficient votes and seats, to form a government of their own.

Coalition-politics, national parties and/or governments succumbing to the

manipulative/blackmailing tactics of these divisive forces and their self serving leaders,

political instabilities and intermittent elections have become the norm of the day.

Political parties - national or otherwise - and our representative bodies at all levels, from

Panchayat to Parliament, have become a den of criminals, sycophants, and hypocrites

causing a ‘Character-crisis’ in our political leadership and morale decay of the masses.

Reign of such politicians have degraded our representative bodies to ridiculously low levels

degrading it to a den of goons. Have you heard of any orderly disciplined debates on any

subject in our parliament or state legislatures in recent times? It is always pandemonium

there. Whatever the treasure bench brings the opposition objects vociferously, they call

names, even indulge in obscene acts and physical assaults, snatching papers, throwing

chairs and mikes… like gang-world street fights. Walkouts in the house to deny a

6

6

meaningful debate are rather routine – except when it is to approve a higher perks for

themselves. Instead of democracy it can reasonably be called a caucuso-cracy or Goonda-

cracy.

Contrast this with the quality of people’s representatives and their behavior in the

concerned representative bodies of the most vibrant and strong democracy in the world, the

American contrast, even at most difficult times like Monica Levenski episode when there

were all the incentives to behave mean. This difference in the qualities and behavior of

representatives explains the difference between their prosperity and our poverty. My search

is to determine the flaw that causes such degeneration in the quality of our elected

representatives and to see how to rectify it.

Such impotent vicious leadership has caused moral decay to the society, manipulated and

compromised the integrity of the bureaucracy and even judiciary and baptized each and

every institution in corruption. Character-crisis is so poignant that common-man has lost

trust and hopes in any of the institutions and is turning to religious sects and

extremist/secessionist groups, giving ready recruits to enemies of nation.

Myself also had been dallying with the familiar view, often projected by our intelligentsia

and social leaders, that corruption, communalism, selfishness, poverty, illiteracy, etc… are

the causes of this degeneration and had been seeking ways and means to neutralize them.

But those efforts and failures, of myself and of others, and related postmortems were

always leading me to few more basic questions. I myself was, like many other concerned

patriotic Indians today are, also groping in the dark for the right clues to find out the real

basic cause.

Few political events of recent past in India and abroad provided me the necessary clues to

solve this riddle. Dangerous political dramas following two successive elections (1996) in

the span of few months in Bangladesh [See ‘indirect election’ in ‘Perils of Westminster

Parliamentary System’], our own hung parliament of 1996, 13 day BJP Government, overt

and covert political dramas and two coalition governments that followed were the most

important events among them that helped me to understand the undemocratic practice of

our so called ‘biggest democracy’ and the dangerous congenial flaws of Westminster

Parliamentary System. Ascendance of Mr. Bill Clinton and Mr. Tony Blair as the leaders

7

7

of Democrats in America and Labor in Briton respectively, multitude of political parties

and resultant hung-Parliament of Hungary - which was then just five years into

Westminster parliamentary system, were other important events provided me with essential

clues. Kiran Bedi’s reforms of, and her unceremonious removal from, Thihar Jail,

experiences of G.K.Khairnar of Bombay Municipal Corp., Sree.Anna Hazare’s

‘Brashtachar Virodhi Andholan, JMM bribery scandal of Sree.Narasimha Rao era and

increasing number of criminals reaching our representative bodies were among many other

leads that helped me to conclude my analysis with a clearer answer: ‘Our political system

is basically flawed and those flaws are producing all those degenerative symptoms’

which our pretentious reformers and intelligentsia wrongly identify and vilify as the cause

of degeneration itself.

My awareness about the dangerous flaws of our political system that cause this

degeneration, and the appalling complacence exhibited by our demoralized socio-political

leaders and intelligentsias, were frustrating me. Concern about the degeneration and the

imminent dangers compelled me to try to do whatever I can to regenerate our society. This

book, ‘DEMOCRACY IN INDIA - Problems and Solutions’, is the product of this

concern and compulsion: a means to propagate my views. Literary works and political

campaigns are otherwise alien to my talent.

Work on this direction started immediately after our 1996 parliamentary elections. Few

group discussions were conducted and a book-let in Malayalam was printed in August 96.

Being my first effort in writing, it contained much more fat and lacked much explanation.

Also as the subject is of all-India relevance, need of an English version was felt during my

interactions with many reform-activists from other parts of India, whom I had met as part of

my efforts to convince and partner them in my endeavor to rectify the flaws in our system.

So work on this book was started in early 98 incorporating answers for commonly raised

questions and opinions came up during many discussions and through many articles by our

intelligentsia appeared in print media.

Despite my best efforts, due to my limited literary talent, I do not boast of this book to be a

work of any literary standard. I urge my readers to evaluate this book not on its literary

value but on the merit of its contents.

8

8

Back to subject: I would compare a vibrant democracy with a multi-layered pyramid with

two doors, each with opposite characters, on each layer. Lowest layer the grass root

institutions and the apex of the pyramid with a single seat - the highest power, being the

seat of its Chief executive – PM/President.

One of the door at each layer continuously attracts and filters-in the most competent ones

from the layer bellow it to govern it, and the other door continuously purge any one seen

not so competent to be promoted to the next layer during their time in the concerned layer.

So only the ‘better’ keep rising while even the ‘good’ fall on the wayside. This ensures

that the apex layer of the pyramid, seat of the highest authority of the institution, is always

occupied by the most competent of that society; and each layer is perpetually rejuvenated

with most competent new blood.

Unfortunately those doors in Indian Democracy are tampered to malfunction- they

have reversed their function: Attracting and filtering-in the tainted opportunistic

sycophantic lackeys only and purging any one exhibiting a grain of competence, integrity

and independence during their time at the concerned layer.

My endeavor is to expose the cause of this flaw and rectify it. I appeal for dedicated effort

from all concerned patriots to partner in this effort and do whatever they can at their level

to fulfill our cherished common dream ‘A Great India’.

Jai Hind

‘The human urge to go beyond what seems to be impossible, and his

perseverance to follow the cause, would lead to unbelievable achievements’.

9

9

1. Flawed General Perception & futility of the present reform

efforts Corruption, selfishness, moral-decay, communalism, etc. are generally considered as the

causes of our society’s degeneration. That is because we encounter them in our day-to-day

life and also because we are constantly brainwashed/conditioned thus by our demoralized

and institutionalized intelligentsia and media who do not dare to or are not capable to look

further than their nose. But a deeper analysis would prove that they are really just

symptoms produced by the degeneration. Even the malfunction of the political parties and

other institutions, such as the bureaucracy, security agencies, media etc., are also not the

cause but the manifestations/symptoms of this degeneration. Our political system itself, a

PSEUDO-/PERVERTED DEMOCRACY - that produces and promotes a tainted,

opportunistic, timid and sycophantic political-leadership-hierarchy, breeds nepotism and

perpetuates their reign; that cause the proliferation of political parties; that cause distortion

of the people’s verdict, instability and incompetence, is the real culprit .

It is a vicious cycle, internally producing ever-increasing acceleration for its degenerative

trajectory: i.e. a flawed system producing a vicious leadership to operate it and this self

serving leadership manipulating the system and society to fulfill their own greed, to

perpetuate their reign thus causing further degeneration. The more the degeneration the

more vicious the leadership it produces. As far as this flawed political system prevails so

far this cycle would continue unabated perpetuating reign of this genus of political

leadership, vitiating our polity further, breeding more and more corruption, moral-decay,

etc… and widening further and further our religious, ethnic, regional and many other

schisms aggravating this degeneration; ultimately leading us to a civil war and

disintegration.

I have explained in the reminder of this chapter that selfishness, corruption, communalism,

etc… are part basic traits of human beings – more appropriately of all life forms. My

endeavor is not to rationalize or glorify all the vices in the society branding them as basic

traits, but is only to establish that: Identifying these traits as causes of our society’s

degeneration and fighting them (trying to eliminate them) to regenerate our society

are futile and misleading. These traits are normally kept-in-check to a harmless limit, at

10

10

times even sublimating them to supplement forces of progress, in healthy societies through

dexterous management and inspiration by its competent leaders.

Many reformers, unaware of this basic fact, are wasting their resources by fighting to

eliminate these symptoms/traits in their effort to regenerate our society. Many past

reformers had tried similar routes. A few of them may have succeeded in creating an

illusion of islands of hope for a short-while which too dissolved into society’s continued

degeneration in the due course. Some of them understood, though belated, the irrelevance

of their platforms but are too demoralized/timid to admit it in public. My meeting on 25-7-

97 with Sree.Anna Hazare (of ‘Brastachar Virodhi’ fame) is a good example for this. He

had, just before that meeting, by fasting at his village temple, forced two allegedly corrupt

Siv-Sena ministers to quit.

During our talks he admitted that the new ministers who replaced the resigned ones were

also corrupt and that ministers and other politicians in Mahatrashtra, other states and at

national level are mostly corrupt and that it is impossible for him to go on fasting to

remove all of them ….and that my views are more basic and practical….

He asked for time to consult with his other trustees before declaring that corruption is just

a symptom and fighting to eradicate/control it, without addressing the cause, is futile. But

thereafter he never answered my repeated letters and continued with his hypocritical anti-

corruption platform even though its futility was exposed and understood beyond any

logical doubt during our above mentioned discussion.

Experience with T.N. Seshan, the media made paper-tiger, or self proclaimed Alsatian of

patriotism and selflessness, at his ‘Desa-Bhakta’ sangamam, proved that he was not even

willing to hear anything other than that of his slogan: ‘Fight corruption; it will take care of

everything else’ and that he was trying to use Desa-Baktha platform to project himself as

the only saviour.

Frustrated with the imbroglios created by our political leadership, and hypocrisies,

opportunism and futility of our reformers, few have started to advocate autocracy or

martial law. Our own short history of 1975-77 emergency era and history of our

neighbors, Pakistan and Bangladesh, should be sufficient deterrent for any sensible person

to advocate martial rule. I have full faith in Democracy. Democracy is the natural

11

11

progression in socio-cultural evolution of human species, evolved to manage complex

modern societies. Any effort to reverse history is futile and dangerous. And political

parties are part and parcel of democracy in such a vast country like ours.

Now let me explain the factors generally projected as causes of our degeneration to

establish that some of them are our (otherwise-benevolent) basic traits and that they are

vitiated by the degenerative forces to meet their self serving agenda hence manifesting

detrimentally to the society; and that few others are symptoms produced by the

degeneration of our society itself. Also that would explain why the present reform efforts

centered on those factors do not deliver.

home

1-1. Confusing politics with Economy:

It is a common practice to confuse political system with economic policy. Whenever one

starts to talk about the political system, the one I am doing, immediately people, not only

common-man but even politically more aware (?) socio-political leaders and erudite elite

also mix it with economic issues such as poverty, social security, inflation, joblessness,

economic liberalization, etc. ….

Political system means the system & ethos a society follow to decide-on/create its political

leadership. It can be a hereditary monarchy, Autocracies of any nuances, theocracy,

democracies of varying nuances etc. It has nothing to do with Economic policy.

A political leadership coming to power through any of the above political system can try

to follow any type of economic policy it desire to – namely: the nearly extinct Feudalism

or its arch rival Communism, moderate Socialism or the most modern Market Economy or

a mix of any of these.

But whatever the economic policy, or any other policy – such as foreign policy, science &

technology policy, educational policy, to comprehend it properly, make sufficient

modification to suit ones society, convince and take along the public with and to execute it

promptly a society needs competent leadership. I am dealing with that aspect only; i.e.

12

12

purely/exclusively on the creation of a competent political leadership, and nothing

else.

If majority want a leadership leaning to Communism they can select one, or if they want

one which would take us back to feudalism they can do so … Once such leadership is in

power it should be competent and stable enough to shape the society as per their ideas and

views.

What is the use of having a leadership with an unviable but grand vision (some times

‘Utopian’) and who promise the sky but is not competent enough, or not willing to do

much? One who sulk at pressure or at each attack form opposition or vested interested?

A competent leader should have the ability to comprehend problems and peculiarities of

the society, to form a attainable vision and the resolve to executive it. He should be able to

convince and take the society with him in his endeavor.

So I request my readers to desist from deviating to economics. Here my sole aim is to

expose the flaws that deny our society a competent dynamic leadership and to prescribe

means to rectify them.

home

1-2. Complacence/cynicism

Most common extreme arguments we hear when we talk of a degeneration and necessity

of a reform effort in our society are: –

‘ India is a great country. These are not problems to worry about. Those who project them

as danger signals of high-jacking the state by vested interests and anti-national elements,

civil war and disintegration are fear mongers with some hidden selfish motives. India,

because of its (past) greatness, will survive intact and prosper without any effort from any

body …’ That is at one extreme.

At the other end is: ‘Trying to reform India is futile. We, Indians, are a rotten society.

However hard you try we would never improve… we, Indians, are a doomed lot. ...’

13

13

They are conveniently forgetting or feigning ignorance of the history – a very short history

- of the geographic entity we identify today as India, as well as the frequent changes of

geographic boundaries in the world map. Both these opinions seem to be products of less

of ignorance and more of fear of pain/lose. Admitting existence of a problem would

automatically ask for a solution. If existence of a solution admitted it would demand an

effort to attain it. Any effort may cause some lose, pain or discomfort which they are not

willing to endure. So their unconscious-selves choose the easy way out - Ignore existence

of a problem or a solution.

Problems would always be, and had always been, there in any society – irrespective of its

size and chronological or geographical location. They need solutions. And to solve

problems before it cause damage to the society it needs competent, dexterous managers.

There is nothing such as status quo in the nature. Perpetual change is its law. If

changes/solutions are managed dexterously by efficient managers a smooth transition is

possible. If problems are left unattended or mismanaged, or if changes are resisted, after a

critical limit nature would take its own course - mostly a disastrously violent one. The

bigger the society the more complex its problems would be and it would demand more

dexterity from its managers to solve them. Ours, with its vastness, countless diversities

and bursting populace, is one of the most complex societies in this world. To survive and

progress, to solve its complex problems, it demands highly dexterous positive

manipulation from most competent managers. Unfortunately managers we appoint are

almost always deficient in competence and integrity, hence their moron management is

leading us to penury and to internecine through exaggerations of the inherent schisms of

our diversity. Our enemies are exploiting this weakness to lead us to a disastrous civil war

and disintegration while our political bosses squabble on the petty politics and scams up

on scams to loot the nation.

home

1-3. Awareness

Our intelligentsia points to ignorant illiterate populace as the basic cause of our

degeneration and related problems. They rant: ‘we, Indians, with our illiterate masses,

aren’t matured for democracy. We elect the wrong persons as our

14

14

representatives/governors because of the lack of literacy and awareness. For smooth

running of our democracy we should educate masses to enlighten them, make them aware

of...(?)’. Others are prescribing some minimum academic qualification for peoples’

representatives to eradicate corruption and inefficiency. Many of them are trying to

enhance awareness of the masses on the fronts they think is necessary to regenerate India.

First on the prescription of academic qualification to the representatives … Just look back

into the characters involved in the many scams unfolded/unfolding in political and

bureaucratic levels. Are any of them illiterate? Or look at the politicians with reasonable

education cultivating criminal nexus and using such links to terrorize opponents’ vote

banks. So literacy or academic qualification is not the scale of integrity. Education can

polish one’s talents, give more knowledge about the world, but would not change his

innate traits. It can make a crook a sophisticated crook, it would enable one to enter into

higher echelons of the society and commit crimes of much higher proportions with a

limited impunity using loopholes in the law and society.

On the illiteracy … other than the factors stated above … if we look back into the history

we can see that the American society, one of the most dynamic democracies today was

much primitive than we were in 1950s, when they adopted democracy more than two

hundred years ago. Yet democracy flourished there, their society always elected most

competent leaders to lead/govern them to more prosperity – the best proof that the quality

of the leadership make the difference in governance/management of the society and the

real awareness to elect the good leaders is not something someone can disseminate.

We, even the most illiterate among us, with some kind of innate animal instinct,

implicitly distinguish the virtues and vices in our surroundings. Most of the villagers

may not know much and may be illiterate but their collective wisdom is capable of

distinguishing what is good and what is not so good for them, who is trustworthy and who

is not and who is competent among them and who is not. There may be exemptions but

generally they respect the virtuous and aspire for good leaders to lead/govern them. Given

a chance with impunity, irrespective of other incentives, they would express this

discernment. They have time and again demonstrated this wisdom, and resolve to use it

judiciously, while using their voting rights to elect representatives to representative bodies.

They had thrown-out Congress, despite its money/muzzle power in 1977 for its autocratic

15

15

tendencies and excess, and installed Janatha Party with stunning majority for the hope it

provided. But dumped Janatha in 79 for its disunity, instability and misrule, and reinstalled

Congress. Any number of similar instances of recent past, for or against a party or a leader

(at center & states), can be cited as examples.

If they have failed to install a better regime after discarding one, it was not for their lack of

awareness or resolve, but for lack of choice. They were always compelled to cast a

negative vote against incumbent misrule, because our political system always failed to

provide us with a credible alternative to exercise a positive vote.

From where the voters, even with the highest possible awareness, would elect a competent

one as his representative when the election arena is full of lackeys, sycophants and vicious

manipulators only? If we have to get desirable results after democratic elections, if we

intent our voters to elect competent men of integrity and character as their

representatives/governors, first we should make sure that the candidates in the fray are of

such qualities.

So the earlier our awareness reformers stop their pretension of being the custodian of (and

moral authority to dole-out) awareness and try to find out and rectify the flaw that devoid

our politics of men of virtues, that foster the most vicious to enter and succeed in politics,

the better for our society. If we are to survive and prosper as a democracy we should have

trust in the virtues of humanity, should learn to respect the wisdom of the society and its

willingness to express it.

home

1-4. Moral decay/Low Morale

Moral decay is often projected as a cause for our degeneration. And many, especially

religious/spiritual leaders are trying to instill moral into the society.

The term Moral-decay is highly debatable as moral standards vary depending upon who,

when and where the judge is. Moral-decay, like corruption and selfishness, has been a

perpetual cry of civilizations of all ages. All religions were created to and almost all wars

in epics and mythologies were fought to restore the eroded moral standards of the

16

16

concerned societies. Lord Buddha, Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohamed and many more lead

their followers, who transformed into new religions, in their fight (rebellion) against

perceived moral-decay of their contemporary societies. Epics Ramayana and

Mahabharatha are centered on it. Lord Krishna declared, in Geetha: “Yadhahi yadhahi

dharmasya glanir bavathi… … Dharma samsthapanarthaya sambavami yuge yuge” So

moral standards had always been under trial and efforts to restore it, albeit to an arbitrary

standard set by a reformer or those wielding power, had always been there. But the cry of

moral-decay never ceased and it would continue as long as the civilizations would.

But for Morale: In healthy society its members would have the confidence and the

boldness to fight against evils, evils in ones own perception. By evils I do not refer to the

moral standards set by the religions or other self-proclaimed guardians of moral.

Surely our society has a very low morale. We, society as a whole, are a frustrated lot,

have lost any hope/trust in our leadership and institutions, have lost courage to stand up

and fight evils around us and have resigned to submission. That has made us a society of

under achievers, under performers, hypocrites and cowards. We have lost commitment to

society. That is because we have not got any virtuous Role-models to emulate, or Icons of

stature to inspire us in our contemporary social and political leadership. Our Role-

models, social and political leaders, are the most vicious ones and many are emulating

them.

How can we have high morale when out ‘Rajah’, top political leadership shamelessly

indulge in public display of Sycophancy as was done by Mr. Zail sing’s while he was

President of India. He declared: “I would take a broom and sweep her (Indhira Gandhi’s)

court-yard if she ordered me to do so”!!! (see sycophancy our national trait)

Enthusiasm, courage and morality are highly contagious qualities. Men catch these

very fast from their leaders – their role–models, their icons. So can moral-decay/low

morale be termed as the cause for our present degeneration? To the contrary, a

degenerated society is causing moral-decay, eclipsing our morale. So moral-decay or low

morale is a symptom, manifestation, of the degeneration of the degeneration of the society;

not vise-verse.

17

17

So to conclude: Creation of a virtuous leadership is a prerequisite to the restoration of high

morale (or regeneration) in any society.

home

1-5. Corruption

Our social leaders and intelligentsia have never been tired of trumpeting corruption as the

most prominent cause for the degeneration of our society. It is omnipresent. All of us are

somehow related to it as victims, acquiescent or an active practitioner. And most of us are

frustrated with its effects on our day-to-day life. Corruption is no longer taboo. It

unfortunately even appeals to substantial section of population as a means of making easy

money and to get rich quick or to avoid inconveniences. Hence we easily fall prey to this

high-pitched cry vilifying corruption as the biggest reason of our society’s degeneration.

But is it a peculiar phenomenon affecting us Indians or confined to this era only? It is

perpetually universal. But it’s wide spread manifestation, it’s attaining acceptance as a

way of life is surely a symptom of ill health/degeneration.

Can it be termed as a cause of the degeneration?

It was born with the intelligent human beings (may be with much primitive life forms

also). Only its nuances have changed keeping pace with socio-economic changes. All

epics and religious books loathe it as we do today, and are full of teachings against it.

Even today, many religious, social and political leaders and reformers are, as many

before them had been, fighting it at may levels. Most of them are so fanatical on

corruption they refuse even to consider any other cause. Others, built their name, fame

and followers on anti-corruption platform (Anna Hazare, T.N.Seshan, G.K.Khairnar

etc), are afraid of losing them if they admit their platform’s futility. Many celebrated

political leaders, in their crusade against corruption in their parent parties, had split

them, and formed their own parties to lead anticorruption crusade. Some of them even

won elections and made their governments promising to eradicate corruption.

(V.P.Sing’s Janatha-Dal is there as a classic example for everybody to judge the

hollowness of such platforms)

18

18

If corruption was a basic cause, with all these onslaughts against it, it should have been

disappeared long ago from this world. But has corruption disappeared or at least

diminished a bit? To our frustration, not only it has not diminished a bit but has thrived,

even baptizing most anti-corruption crusaders into its fold. So, even if admitted it as the

cause - just for the sake of argument, what logic is there in hoping that our present day

crusaders would succeed to eradicate it today or tomorrow?

I don’t mean to close our eyes against it or to indulge in it. It is an evil to be fought to

keep it in check so that it would not hamper the progress of the society. Competent

managers/governors and vigilant citizens in healthy societies are doing it efficiently and

silently; while most of our managers/political leaders and even pretentious anticorruption

crusaders and intelligentsia acquiesce, facilitate or practice corruption despite their

vociferous anticorruption campaigns.

I would like to stress that projecting it as the ultimate villain/cause for our degeneration or

preaching and fighting for its eradication as (sole) means for the regeneration of our

society is misleading, futile and hypocritical. By over-emphasizing on corruption, these

crusaders are not only wasting their own energy and resources but are also deflecting

our attention from the real cause: Perversions of our political system that breed

practitioners and promoters of corruption, the tainted sycophants to manage it, are

breeding corruption to ridiculously pathetic levels we experience today.

home

1-6. Selfishness

Selfishness, the cause of corruption itself, a basic trait of all the life forms including

human beings is also blamed for our society’s degeneration. It is an essential trait for the

survival, progress and vitality of life itself. It breeds competition for hegemony, for

possession of resources – space, food, water sources, mates, etc. - essential for survival. In

the nature the most competent would grab the best and most, and the weakest are doomed

to perish – starved by deprivation forced by the competing members of its on species or

preyed by predators. That is how - through ‘survival of the fittest and allowing the fittest

only to procreate’ - the nature keeps inter-species balances and intra-species vitality.

19

19

Selfishness, the very essential and basic trait, irrespective of how much we abhor it, can

never be wished away; it would be there with us catalyzing further achievements

through competition and rejuvenation in healthy and well-managed societies or

breeding degeneration and corruption in mismanaged and sick societies like ours.

Hence blindly vilifying it for all of our societies imbroglios is hypocrisy and trying to

eliminate it is futile. Dreaming its eradication is utopian. Instead our effort should be, if

positive results have to be obtained, to appoint competent men to dexterously manage our

society where inspired individual/group interests (selfishness) would be sublimated to

complement (not to detriment - as is generally the case today in India) that of society.

[I am a firm believer that Human beings through our social institutions, laws

and medical, scientific and technical advancements, especially we Indians with

our long history of civilization and rule of law, has compromised this

rejuvenating force of the nature – survival of and procreation by the fittest -

causing considerable degeneration of our genetic stock]

home

1-7. Communalism/Ethnic schism

Communalism, an expression of group-selfishness, is subject to all that mentioned above

about ‘Selfishness’. Identity of commune is not limited, as we generally identify, to

communities of different religions or castes or creed or ethnicity. Type of commune can

take any shape. It is just any groups with something common to identify among its

members. That identity can be ideological belief, color, culture, language, caste, religion,

region or any other factor.

Fear of the ‘Other’ and the ‘Us-versus-Them’ form the basis of this trait. From primitive

hunter/gatherer groups, a pack of close relatives and primitive tribes settled by the

invention of agriculture social evolution has lead us to more complex communes, i.e. from

ethnic to theological/religious communes to today’s national, political/ideological ones.

These identities would keep transforming adopting new shapes and colors to keep pace

20

20

with social evolutions. Yes, it could be united against an out side force, say a malicious

pathogen that afflict human beings, natural forces common to all of us, or an extra-

terrestrial invasion. Then humanity is one community and the other our common enemy.

If Karl Marx had incorporated a God and some rituals in his philosophy, ‘Marxist

Religion’ would have been spread all over the world to become the biggest religion today.

Today’s political parties can be considered as new products of the same forces that created

religions in the old days. And still there are plenty of scope for new religions.

Roots of Communalism (Religious and/or Political)

Erric Formm in his book ‘Fear of Freedom’ has said: The feeling

of insecurity haunts one as one grows up from infancy to

adulthood and becomes aware of the precariousness of human life.

Many seek to overcome it through sadistic domination of others

or masochistic submission to a person, entity or an i dea … In

the latter, one draws strength from, and feels protected by, a

person, entity, idea or religious belief to which one surrenders one’s

will and autonomy.

So it is deeply ingrained in human nature to identify ourselves with one or the other group,

be it ethnic, religious, political/ideological or of some other nuance. Interests of these

groups, and even that of intra groups, would surely contradict and it may cause fights/wars

– covert or overt. Political elections are such communal tussle, adapted to be in

consonance with contemporary society and social laws. Present and history is full of such

wars - Kosovo, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Indonesia, Vietnamese, Afghanis… our own Bihar,

Kashmir, Naxal… they are countless.

Population growth to an unsustainable level to its environment universally causes

escalations of communal violence. This phenomenon is not restricted to human beings

only but is a common phenomenon, in different nuances, to all life forms. You can see its

traces among your livestock, pets or wild animals and birds. I remember reading a

research report on primates. A group of anthropologists, in their effort to understand basic

21

21

human traits, studying two communes of chimpanzees – genetically the closest relatives of

human species - in their natural habitat reported: ‘Members of those chimpanzee

communes were leaving quite harmoniously keeping friendly contacts. Abandoned space

and food (primary resources) avoided need for undue competition and both communities

thrived. Increased population started to put pressure on limited resources. To worsen the

situation, drought aggravated food scarcity. Small isolated quarrels related to food,

between members of opposite groups, soon escalated into a full-scale communal violence

that stopped only after the stronger group killed all males, including toddlers, of opposite

group!’

I think this example sufficiently explains increased strife between different communities.

Religion/caste is used as just one identity to form a group. If those identities are not

available other identities would emerge. Even political violence are another type of

communal strives. In essence it is a struggle, competition between groups/herds, for

hegemony/turf/resources. Political power is the best resource/weapon to control all

other resources. This struggle is universally eternal. So blaming religion or caste or creed

for violence or communal schism for our society’s degeneration is futile and hypocritical.

They are all part of struggle for survival/resources/hegemony.

Oblivious to this basic instinct that drives us to identify as communes, or for their over-

enthusiasm to change the natural laws, some philanthropists are trying to create a world

religion/language, or a one world Government etc… Their dreams are utopian, anti-

natural hence their efforts in those directions futile. In the vastness of this world, we would

always be divided into many communes. Increased population pressure would power more

communal divisions and inter-communal struggles to control limited resources. Survival

instinct demands us (as individuals and as a society) to become more competent

commune/nation to generate more material to meet the demand of its members and to

neutralize predatory challenges of competing societies/nations – to safe guard our own

resources.

In the modern healthy societies national identities have suppressed all other communal

identities. But in our case savage identities of religion/caste/region are not only getting

precedence over the national identity but are gaining strength threatening our existence as

a nation. As mentioned above political parties are also manifestation of our communal

22

22

trait. In the modern societies healthy political parties provide alternative group

identities/rallying points away form religions/castes. But our political parties have

degraded to such pathetic levels that the society has lost trust in them. Gentle men despise

to identify with them. So peoples are automatically turning to their savage identities

reviving religions and castes with vengeance. It is high time to find factors that are

catalyzing the degeneration of our political parties and rectify them to preserve our

national integrity and to avoid petty squabbles detrimental to the progress of our society.

1–8. Conclusion

We, Human beings, being part of a large animal kingdom and other life forms, are liable to

all the above-said basic instincts. But what makes human species great is our attempt to

lift ourselves above the animals by consciously suppressing, and at times sublimating,

these instincts for the society’s common good. These attempts will continue forever,

motivated by their competent leaders, catalyzing more social evolution and progress in

vibrant societies. Sick societies lacking such leaders of stature to inspire/motivate, by the

manifestation of those savage instincts, would slip into internecine, penury and

degeneration.

Any dream of eliminating communal forces from a society is utopian. What we can try is

to keep them in check through dexterous management and inspiring the society to grow to

identify with the greater national identity. But that needs motivation. Credible Icons and

dependable Role Models – dependable socio-political institutions and competent-men of

character, integrity and stature in their leadership- are prerequisite in any society to

motivate its members. Unfortunately our socio-political horizon is devoid of anything of

stature to inspire us.

Selfish/communal interests of individuals and groups/communes do not contradict but

supplement that of a healthy society. Uncontrolled growth of corruption and manifestation

of individual and group interests contradicting those of society’s are symptoms of ill

health. The disgusting factor in India is selfishness (of individual and groups) and its

23

23

manifestations such as corruption and communal schism have grown to ridiculously

disastrous proportions that are detrimental to the national interests. Corruption has become

a way of life, has gained respect. Almost every body indulges in it as an active

practitioner, acquiescent or a willing victim. If we do not find out the root cause of this

unhealthy phenomenon and rectify it, it would keep on breeding corruption, morale-decay

etc. further and further and would destroy our society.

In the following pages I am trying to expose the real villain of this degeneration: our

flawed political system, and propose some simple ways to rectify them.

home

2. Basic symptoms

Having explained why the most poignant and more attacked ill factors are not the causes

but just symptoms, secondary symptoms - to be more perfect, here I would take you a

step down further to expose 1) Character-crisis in political leadership, 2) Proliferation

of political parties and 3) Coalition-Politics, etc… and how they produce/aggravate

those ill factors mentioned in the previous chapter to cause overall degeneration to our

society. Few have superficially raised concern about ill effects of these factors … also

mistakenly branding them as the causes. But they, themselves being products of a pseudo-

/perverted political system, can at the best be called the ‘Basic-Symptoms’, but can not

at all be called the basic causes.

home

2-1. Character crisis in political leadership.

24

24

The individual behavior is generally influenced by the group psychology of the society.

Community leaders are role-models/icons of a society. They are the lighthouses for

direction and inspiration for the common man. Qualities like morality, self-confidence,

motivation, patriotism etc or lack of them are highly contagious qualities transmitted

mostly from the icons (leadership) of a society to the masses. History and present are full

of examples of how competent leaders motivate and manage their societies - irrespective

of how inefficient, demoralized and unorganized were it before they took-over - to deliver

good. Examples are: Reformation of Thihar Jail by Ms.Kiran Bedi and of Ralegan Siddhi

by Sree.Anna Hazare… (There are examples of vicious leaders manipulating societies and

using it to fulfill their personal agendas).

Above mentioned examples also demonstrate the universal truth that entities - not only the

jails and villages, but a home or a commercial firm or a social organization or a state -

irrespective of type, shape or size of the unit - with a competent leadership normally

function competently breeding prosperity, prominence and high morale to the unit as a

whole and to its individual members. To the contrary, a similar unit and its members with

an incompetent leadership lose direction and morale, squabble, fall into ridiculous penury

and disgrace and even disintegrate or succumb to external aggression. Today we are fast

approaching the nadir of this second scenario: ...the disintegration through internal

squabbles and vulnerable to external aggression – covert or overt: Kargil, Khandahar,

Kashimir, Nadapuram ...

Opportunistic pygmies incessantly indulge in ridiculous squabbles on petty issues;

whereas competent men of stature gallantly fight for noble causes but seldom squabble.

Unfortunately our society produces and promotes mostly sycophantic pigmies, never a

stalwart, to lead our institutions. Hence the incessant squabbles: between political parties,

groups, leaders in each group, police, defense, intelligence agencies, social institutions ...

religions, castes, sub-castes, regions … it is omnipresent. Our enemies are exploiting this

weakness.

We, nearly thousand million people, boasting inheritance of a rich heritage, are performing

much below our potential. We have surely made some progress in the last 50 years. But

our achievements, be it in agriculture, industry, technology, arts, sports, diplomacy or any

other faculty of life, are far bellow our potentials when compared with other nations with

25

25

much less potentials, who had been at par or behind us in 1950s and 1960s. We became a

nation of under achievers, under performers, hypocrites, cheats and beggars. We are

sending our sons and daughters abroad begging for jobs submitting ourselves to slavery,

Government is begging for help - in the form of monetary, technical, diplomatic support

form other nations, international organizations and multinationals and from individuals

even.

Devoid of stalwarts in our socio-political leadership to lead, guide and inspire us we have

made ourselves butt of international ridicule through our fiascos and hypocrisy.

Opportunistic impostors install themselves or their minion (through manipulations) in our

socio-political leadership imposing vicious role models upon us to emulate, causing

moral-decay of the society. Reversal effect of ‘Yadhahi Raja thadhahi Praja’ sets off a

vicious cycle: i.e. demoralized masses accepting the opportunistic impostors as leaders,

the counterfeits getting acceptance-as or precedence-over the originals, and appointing

them to lead the society; causing further moral decay > more vicious leaders … and so on.

home

Hypocrisy, sycophancy & Cowardice - national traits: I have seen our people

beseeching shamelessly to many of their foreign employers, and Staff & officials at

airports and our Foreign Missions doing the same in a different way, to foreigners, even

for petty gains. Many blame poverty or insufficient salary for this behavior. May be true

partly. But, I consider, more than poverty it shows our trait, caused by low morale because

I have seen people with good education and a lot of money doing the same.

Many had resigned their good jobs back Home and took up much inferior jobs and that too

in near slavery conditions just for a bit more money. I have also seen people from other

countries doing their jobs and bargaining with more dignity for their reasonable rights

whereas most of our People beseech for petty gains but never dare to bargain for rights.

Many unscrupulous foreign employers are exploiting this cowardice of the Indian

community. How can we be bold when our political (social also) leaders, our roll-models,

shamelessly flaunt sycophancy and beseeching as their best quality for political gains?

26

26

Our Cowardice, especially that of our political leadership, was trumpeted recently when

an ex-official of American administration exposed a shameful event, which our political

bosses tried to hide under carpet: our Defense Minister was striped, that also not once

but twice, by American security agencies during his official trips and our Government did

not dare to raise even a murmur of protest!! During the Kandhahar imbroglio , our

Foreign Minister himself traveled shamelessly to present/submit dreaded terrorists jailed

in India at the feet of the hijackers as they had ordered for!

I feel it would be worth to, more precisely it would be unfair not to, quote two grand

examples of shameless sycophancy publicly exhibited by out topmost political leaders.

Once a ‘First Person of the Nation’, head of the state, a President of India declared

publicly: “I would obediently take the broom and sweep her courtyard if ‘Madam’ (then

PM) ordered me to do so!!! That was sycophancy flaunted with an eye on a second term in

Rastrapathy Bhavan, which, with her mercy, she could have doled out.

More recently there was an accusation about the nationality and quality of a party’s top

most leader who immediately tendered her resignation only to take back in a day or two.

In between a shameful public display of frenetic sycophancy by almost all the leaders of

the party was broadcast by the media allover the world. All the Chief Ministers belonging

to the party and the regional heads simultaneously tendered their resignation to party

saying that they are obliged to that particular individual for their positions! Without

her/him they cannot expect to manage the party, win elections … !!! (Chief Ministers were

clever not to give the resignations to Governors in which case they would have lost their

jobs)

-11-2008 Dr. Manmohan Sing admitted after his appointment (pl. note it was not

election) as PM that he is indebted to Ms. Sonia Gandhi for his post… not to Congress

party or to the nation!

I do not intend to evaluate the merits or demerits of Sonia Gandhi vise a verse the

accusations raised against her. My intention is to show how the political leadership

hierarchy has become a den of sycophantic lackeys. She was a newcomer to politics and

those sycophants were in the party much before she started to dream politics, even before

27

27

she came to India. And they telling they became chief ministers and regional bosses of the

party because of her!!!

And at last we heard a Prime minister, otherwise respectable Dr.Manmohan Sing, telling

in public that he is obliged to the post to Sonia madam; and it was a factual statement!!

None is obliged to the public/citizens of India, the voters!!!

Can anybody show a better example of sycophancy anywhere else in the democratic

world? Do we need another example to understand the level of character-crisis in our

political leadership?

Also we had a president who signed the emergency declaration with full knowledge of its

dangerous ramifications. And another president shamelessly declared in his

autobiography: “when Indhira came to me to sign declarations to dismiss opposition

(Janatha) rulled state governments I signed them after telling her: “Morarji Bai had done a

mistake by dismissing Congress Governments in 77 and ‘Madam’, you are repeating the

same mistake”. How bold a president!!! He had no guts to refuse to sign an order he knew

was wrong! How shameless to admit it and still continue to preach morality!!!

Then, if our top leaders, icons of the society, are such shameless cowards to display their

sycophancy publicly how can we behave differently? ‘How the King … so his Subjects’!

Dr.Rajendraprasad had told in 1949 about our constitution: “...If our elected

representatives are (competent) men of character and integrity they can deliver good to

the society even if this constitution is defective. But if they are lacking in these, this

constitution would not help our nation. Constitution, like machines, is lifeless; it draws life

and direction form its operators....”. Unfortunately operators of our constitution and

system, our elected representatives, are lacking in competence, character and integrity.

Hence the constitution is not helping us much. The only remedy lies in breaking this

vicious cycle and installing competent men of integrity and character in political

leadership. Basic Cause/flaw that produce such leadership and a simple remedy to rectify

it is explained later.

home

2-2. Proliferation of political parties

28

28

Political parties are an unavoidable part of a democracy, especially in a vast and

pluralistic society like ours, whatever its form - presidential or Westminster parliamentary

or any other system. They are supposed to act as recruiting and training agencies of

potential political leaders and vehicles to project them at appropriate levels, also as

rallying points for, and generating engines of, public opinion. But their proliferation, as is

universally true to the proliferation of any factor in the nature, is a symptom of ill health.

Today our society is afflicted by an unhealthy/cancerous proliferation of political parties.

We started our democracy with very few parties. Congress was the dominant political

force with an all-India reach/dominance that can be called a national party. Socialists,

Muslim league and Jan Sang also had some presence in the early stages. Then new parties

started to prop-up, mostly through splits in those parties. In the beginning it was a slow

process and had some ideological rationalization. Later, especially after the congress split

in 1969, it took a vicious turn; the splits gained momentum, there were not much glossing

with ideology, and worst, mostly they were to safe guard interests of a leader. Most of

them painted a communal/regional color for the splits – alleged that a particular

community/region was discriminated and a political party was necessary to protect this

entity’s interests. Almost every day parties are split and new ones born somewhere in the

country – mostly in the name a caste, region/sub-region or just a group in the name of an

individual. That is a dangerous sign, detrimental to our national integrity. They foment

otherwise irrelevant religious/regional/ethnic passions to build/maintain their vote-banks

widening the already existing schisms of diversity or creating new divides.

Though leaders/beneficiaries of these parties may try to rationalize relevance of their party

with some lame excuses, every patriot with a bit sanity and political awareness is

frustrated with this phenomenon. When confronted with this flaw many are advocating to

ban x, y, or z party. That is a hind-sighted reaction, a thought in the wrong direction. That

would cause obstruction of fair manifestation of democracy itself. After all, who would

judge the credibility, relevance, or lack of it, of a party compared to others? Whatever the

standards prescribed to ban a party can be misused by one or the other party to ban all

others leading to a single party rule and ultimately to autocracy – like our ‘emergency’

declaration of 1975. These kinds of myopic suggestions would do more harm to

29

29

democracy than the problems it seeks to solve - like any treatment without a proper

diagnosis.

First we should try to identify the real causes for splits in parties and the forces that

provide fertile ground for these splinter groups and so many ever-germinating regional and

caste based parties to thrive. Then only we can search for a way to rectify it. My search

has identified a genetic flaw of our system as the basic cause.

home

2-3. Coalition politics:

Coalitions are unnatural phenomena – a Frankenstein monster. Coalitions have always had

incompatible interests, compromised temporarily for some short-term gains such political

honeymoons are unnatural, brief and self-destructive. Coalitions and proliferation of

political parties are parts of a self-accelerating vicious cycle. Too many parties produce

compulsions for coalitions and coalitions provide fertile ground for small parties and

splinter groups to thrive. Coalitions - always changing shape and size with ever-shifting

loyalties - to face elections, to form governments or to topple them are the rule of the day

in India. Today almost all parties or groups are part of one or the other coalitions.

Coalitions are reminding me of the biblical ‘Noah’s ark’, where compulsion for survival

forced coexistence of otherwise eternal enemies such as: snake and frog, wolf and sheep

etc. Here also otherwise warring persons/groups join hands on a minimum program: i.e.

share power at any coast to mulct the nation. When it comes to power-sharing nothing (be

it ideology, religion, personal animosity) hinder them from being partners in a coalition.

Political leaders who form these coalitions or the social leaders and intelligentsia, who

sing alleluia to these coalitions, do not explain us of how these often ideologically

opposite groups (if at all they can boast of any ideology) would provide stable and good

governance. P.Chidambaram, finance minister in UDF Government 96-98, in an interview

on 16/2/98, admitted this absurdity: “1997 was a wasted year, we had everything going

30

30

for it, the GDP was set for a record 7.5 percent growth. But due to the positions taken by

some political parties we could not implement our policies”.

He also, afflicted by our society’s hypocrisy and low morale, was not willing to ask

himself that:

• Whether this damage/waste was/is limited to 1997/UF Govt. only?

• Or which are the factors that force our political parties to form coalition?

• Or whether there is an escape from these coalition politics and its associated

waste?

• Or whose ideology, in a coalition, would prevail and whose would be abandoned?

If their ideologies are same or so insignificant to discard them at will why should they stay

separate and pollute our political horizon and our minds? No one seems willing to pursue

these questions. When it suits them to wrest power all leaders and parties, without

exception, are ready to embrace and glorify coalitions. When they fail to form one capable

of wresting power, they criticise the inconsistency of opposite coalition. That is part of our

hypocrisy and low morale.

If we are to reform our politiccs and society, we have to pin-down the flaws that compel

parties to form coalitions and share power. Then only we can rectify it. I have tried it in

the following chapter.

home

2-4. Political Instability

We have experienced Governments with life of just a few days – and even hours only.

Some states like Goa had a new ministry nearly every month. As you know, defection of

ruling party members or withdrawal of support by coalition partners (is not it also

defection?) is the cause for the fall of a government. Frequent changes of governments

retard our growth. Before Governments get time to study our problems, formulate policies,

execute them and enact corresponding legislative measures they are toppled and a new

31

31

regime is installed. The new regime, mostly of the opposing parties, just out of political

animosity, discards or is not so much enthusiastic to follow up the previous government’s

projects policies… retarding growth and wasting our resources.

First we had the whip, itself an anti-democratic tool, to discipline members to vote along

party lines (especially during no-confidence motions to ensure the stability of a

government). That could not stop defections and fall of governments. Frustrated by

intermittent defections and resultant instabilities ‘anti-defection law’ was enacted. Now it

has proved itself not only its futility but also its role as a catalyst to split parties and

accelerate their degeneration. It failed because this amendment was brought, like many

other amendments, without studying and addressing the underlying cause for the

defections; because it was a cosmetic, a reactive remedy; not a pro-active one.

Restricting members freedom to air his opinion and vote accordingly in the representative

bodies is a gross violation of the spirit of democracy itself. In developed healthy

democracies whip is used to assure the presence of a member during crucial discussion

and voting sessions. If every member has to vote as the party boss or caucus think fit then

why we should send so many members to the concerned bodies. Instead an officer bearer

of a party can attend and vote for the party – his vote would have the weight/value

proportional constituencies his party won in the election. This way we should have saved

much money spent upon the army of representatives and unnecessary – mostly unethical -

pandemoniums in the house.

home

2-5. Intermittent Elections

Though defections and the resultant change of governments do not necessarily always

cause fresh elections, they are the only cause for unscheduled elections. Elections are the

lifeline of a democracy. A system without elected representatives to manage it, whatever

other virtues it can claim of, cannot be called a democracy. But like everything else, too

much of election too is harmful to any society.

Unfortunately, like the damage caused by hyperactivity of the life saving immune system

in allergy patients, frequent elections are now one of the biggest hurdles to our

32

32

development. Apart from elections to the Lok Sabha elections, there are Assembly

elections in the states, elections to local bodies and omni-present bye-elections to one or

the other level of representative body. We are perpetually in an election mood.

Elections cause huge expenses. An army of bureaucrats, administrative machinery as a

whole and security personals are drawn into this exercise pushing everything else to the

backburner till the poll process is completed. Politicians of all hues and levels are

immersed in the campaign dragging with them a huge army of party workers causing so

many productive man-days. Reigning Governments are prohibited by election rules form

enacting any policy decisions. And, as stated above, developmental policies, programs and

corresponding legislations are sacrificed for, national resources wasted and growth

retarded by, these otherwise avoidable unscheduled elections.

If we have to prosper, if we are to have fairly stable governments and avoid intermittent

elections, we would have to find out the incentives/basic causes for defections and address

them.

Now the basic symptoms having defined we would try to find out the under-laying factors

creating these symptoms and prescribe appropriate remedy.

home

3. Basic Causes and solutions

We have seen that ‘Character Crisis’ in the political leadership is causing or aggravating

almost all ill symptoms, corruption and moral decay being most prominent among them,

of the degradation of our society; and that ‘coalition politics and proliferation of

political parties’ are aggravating our communal schisms and causing political instability.

Now let us see what creates the character crisis and proliferation of political parties and

33

33

what are the compulsions to seek/form coalitions and how to rectify these flaws. I hold

flaws in our political system, generally praised as the ‘biggest democracy’, but really a

‘pseudo-/perverted democracy’, as the real villains.

home

3-0. Pseudo- & Perverted Democracy

I would like to compare a vibrant democracy to a multi-layer institution, a pyramid, with

two doors on each layer, each with diametrically opposite functions. One of the door at

each level continuously attracts and filter-in, from the layer just below it, competent men

of integrity and character to govern it; while second door, to make space for the new

comers, continuously purge those seen not so competent during their time at that particular

level. Thus only the ‘better’ keep rising while even the ‘good’ fall on the

wayside. This ensures that the apex layer of the pyramid, with a single seat of the highest

authority of the institution, is always occupied by the most competent of that society; and

each layer is perpetually rejuvenated with new blood.

Unfortunately those doors are malfunctioning in the Indian Democracy - they have

reversed their function: Attracting and filtering-in the opportunistic sycophants only and

purging any one exhibiting a grain of competence and independence in the due course.

The spirit of democracy is the fierce competition to become common-man’s

representative (at different levels) to govern them, and freedom of opinion. A perfunctory

analysis would produce a feeling that we have free and fair election - with too many

competing candidates and parties. And common man is not legally restricted form airing

his opinions. This conspicuous symbolism, combined with a continuous mass-

psychological suggestion - for last 50 years our own social leaders, intelligentsia and the

world had been boasting: ‘India is the biggest democracy’, is obscuring the undemocratic

manipulations in our polity. Education, age or social status is no barrier to this mass

hypnotism. So eyebrows are raised with suspicion when I say that ours is a pseudo-

/distorted democracy. I had faced this attitude even from some celebrated and erudite

social leaders, pretentious reformers, when I tried to explain my views in my efforts to

subscribe their help in my endeavor. So first let us take-up least controversial part and

analyze ‘why ours is a pseudo-democracy’ and what its effects are on our society.

34

34

I would summarize the basic flaws, the pseudo-ness and perversions, which cause this

degeneration as:

1- Negation of inner-party democracy: Breeds nepotism, sycophancy and

incompetence in political leadership hierarchy through nominations. Such

leadership breeds corruption, moral decay and inefficiency in the system

and society.

2- Indirect election of chief Executive –PM/CMs: Makes this post

susceptible to coercions by tainted self-serving political pressure groups.

Causes splits in and proliferation of political parties, coalition politics and

instability.

3- Candidate/party/constituency Elections: Dwarves potential political

leaders to the smallest constituency level. Distorts proportions between true

public support/votes won by political parties and their actual representation

in the concerned representative bodies to dangerous levels.

Most important symbol of the ‘pseudo-ness of our system is ‘Negation of competition’ –

a manipulation by our self-serving political leadership to strengthen their reign. Most of

the ‘third-world nations’ are afflicted by such manipulation. Common-men, are regularly

called at election times to elect his representatives. This exercise exudes a feeling of real

democracy in practice. But elections are just one of many link in a chain of exercises to

elect representatives. In our system, real democratic exercise just starts and ends there

itself. All pre-/post-election maneuvers are manipulated undemocratically. Every day we

hear about Party bosses and their caucuses ‘nominating’ their lackeys to different levels

of political leadership resembling an autocracy. This practice obstructs the free play of the

most vital democratic force, the ‘competition’, the spirit and the rejuvenating force of

democracy itself, which generally brings up/promote competent men from the society to

lead/govern it. So I call it a ‘Pseudo-democracy’ – exhibiting symbols of democracy but

obstructing it free and fair manifestation.

home

35

35

3-0-a. Party whip is, as explained (in instability), another paradox exhibiting the pseudo-

ness of our democracy. Common man is free to air his opinion at will. But his elected

representatives are not allowed to air their opinion or vote according to their will. If

‘Freedom of opinion’ is obstructed where it matters most, the people’s representative

bodies, the ultimate seat of power in a democracy, how can it be called a democracy? So I

call it a pseudo-democracy.

During no-confidence votes against Mr. Deva Gowda’s and Mr.Gujral’s governments in

97 many congress MPs publicly expressed their frustration with this contradiction. Many

of them were against these motions. But because of the party whip they had no other way:

vote for it or lose their membership in parliament, due to anti-defection law – itself a

gimmick (since proven useless) devised to strengthen hold of reigning caucuses in each

party. All of them choose to vote for it and kept their memberships. Cowardice or

political expediency – what would we call it?

Mr. Sharad Pawar, Leader of Opposition then in Lok Sabha, reacting to the imbroglios of

cross voting in Rajya Sabha elections, officially admitted prevalence of this undemocratic

practice on 6-7-98: “The MLAs in question are not at fault as they had handed over blank

forms signed by them, and it was the state leadership who marked votes on them!” (There

are many more examples from center and states to quote, not only in Congress party, but

also in all parties)

Contrast this with practice in the most vibrant and powerful democracy, America.

1999-2000 President Clinton haunted by the Monica Levinsky episode. It went as far as

senate, where Clinton’s Democratic Party was a minority, debating Impeachment of

President. Few members of Democrates openly supported the impeachment move while

many Conservatives objected it. All of them voted according to their conscience, not to the

diktats of any leader/caucus… Impeachment move was defeated. There was no

pandemonium in the house even during the debate on an issue where all the incentives to

be nasty were there. Each of the senators gracefully argued their case in an efficient house.

Those virtuous qualities, grace and efficiency, are alien to our elected representatives

and the house. Not a single senator from any party was subjected to any punishment for

not towing the party line.

36

36

2008 Elections: (Big Name defections from GoP – The Hindu 26-102008

Many prominent Republicans, Bush’s former secretary of state Mr. Colin Powel, Press

Secretary Mr. Scott McClean, ex. Massachusetts Governor Mr. Mr. William weld….et al...

had openly supported Democratic candidate Mr. Barak Obama. A Rep. Congressional

candidate from Oregon, Mr. Joel Haugen, had expressed his preference of Obam against

Mc Cain and his opposition of Mr. Bush’s policies even before his nomination and still he

won 70% of the nomination votes. But none of them were ousted from their party or

subjected to any disciplinary action or the party did not split because of their dissidence.

If our elected representatives are not free to express or vote according to their will in the

legislative bodies, then how true is the often-trumpeted freedom of opinion in our system?

How a system, which expropriates freedom of it’s elected representatives to express

and vote be called a democracy? Do not these restrictions make election itself a

mockery, a meaningless wasteful ritual? Why should we send so many MPs/MLAs?

Instead a representative of the party could be allowed to cast votes in proportion to

constituencies it won in elections. It would have, at least, saved time and money and

avoided vociferous squabbles in representative bodies. These ridiculer mockeries in the

name of democracy make our system a ‘pseudo-democracy’.

It is a perverted democracy because the system of elections and governance we practice

is inherited with some dangerous genetic flaws we inherited from the Westminster

parliamentary system that work against basics of democracy: i.e. The most basic

democratic right of the common man to appoint his (chief) representative/executive is

hypothecated to some middlemen by this system.

First reaction to the above statement may naturally be: ‘It is functioning perfectly in

Briton, then why can’t it work here?’

First of all this feeling of perfection in Briton is a delusion. A closer look would reveal

cracks of ‘system flaws’ manifesting very similarly to ours in a smaller scale (see Annex

1). These weaknesses are normally concealed by excellent maintenance by its competent

operators - their competent political leadership. They maintain this competence of their

leadership by strictly practicing inner-party democracy, which we have unscrupulously

negated. Big difference between the fairly satisfactory function of British system and

37

37

ridiculous imbroglios of ours lies in their practice and our negation of this vital force of

democracy: inner-party democracy/competition.

Also the continuity and moral authority provided by the King and the Church is providing

a counter balance to the inherent weakness of their system, or more perfectly Westminster

parliamentary system was evolved to help their King to rule his subjects, with moral

support from a powerful church.

Any system, however effective at a particular instance of history in a particular society,

cannot remain effective forever, even in the same society, unless it is rejuvenated and

modified constantly to suit socio-political-economical changes in the course of history.

Then how this system, evolved long ago in a far, small and unitary society, can function

satisfactorily in ours – which is one of the most complex and diverse societies of this

world? But our constituent assembly, after long deliberations, some how opted for

Westminster parliamentary model – replacing its King with a rubber-stamp

president/governor.

Many of the members of our constituent assembly had studied in Britain or under British

system in India. They knew it was working in Briton, and its laws, then in force in India,

were also working. This knowledge and familiarity combined with the xenophobia may

have influenced their choice to zero-in on British system. Thereafter our opportunistic

politicians hold this system and constitution sacrosanct.

Interestingly Briton, birthplace of this system, has started experimenting with proportional

representation and direct election of executive head of government. Inspired by their

young Prime Minister Tony Blair, Wales and Scotland in 1997 September plebiscites

approved for elections to their new regional parliaments in Proportional representative –

an un-British - system. May 98 was time for another plebiscite to give London a powerful

directly elected executive mayor.

But our hypocritical politicians are crying wolf of a suggestion for presidential form of

government / direct election. And the proponents of change has shown their opportunistic

colour by not showing sincerity to explain and convince their opponents and the common-

man about the benefits/strengths of presidential form in comparison with the hazards of

Westminster model.

38

38

I am convinced that if we are to survive as a nation for long, if we want to save India from

disintegration, we should make sufficient changes to our system to rectify above

weaknesses. I am not dreaming a utopia. My search is for improvement to reach as close

as possible to perfection – we human beings would never reach perfection. I do not

subscribe to bestowing sacrosanctity to a system or constitution. It is a continuous

progressive evolution with trails and errors.

To provide a much better system, most importantly an ever-rejuvenating political

leadership of competent men of integrity, that would strive to solve any anomalies as they

arise in our society, that would readily adopt to the socio-political and technological

changes of the society, I propose following changes to our system:

1- Mandatory inner-party democracy: to induct and promote competence in political

leadership hierarchy. To boosts public morale with such competent role models. To

eliminates splits in political parties by disappointed aspirants - by allowing aspirants to

match their comparative competence/(approval among their party members.

2- Direct election of Chief Executive: to eliminate instabilities of hung parliaments and

compulsion for coalitions, which cause proliferation of political parties. To liberate

this important position from coercions and manipulations by political power brokers,

which is a cause for corruption and criminalization of politics. To breed stability,

competence and efficiency in governance.

3- Elections in Proportional representative/List-system: to create truly proportional

representation to popular vote of each party. To eliminate coalitions and related

pampering and proliferation of regional/ethnic parties and splinter groups. To

precipitate a political polarization to two healthy parties. To avoid candidates

identifying with a particular/(small) constituency and exploiting its ethnic schism. To

project politicians to wider regions (state/national levels) helping them to grow in

stature.

home

39

39

3-1. Inner-party Democracy.

Negation of this vital force Cause Character-crisis in leadership and splits in political

parties.

In a democracy, whatever the form of Government - presidential or Westminster

parliamentary or any other form, political parties are its unavoidable part, especially in a

vast society like ours. They are supposed to act as recruiting and training agencies for

potential political leaders and vehicles to project them at appropriate levels, also as

rallying points and generating engines of public opinion.

To fulfill these responsibilities Parties has to be healthy. Health of a party, or any other

organization, is a grand total of competence and integrity of its members. A political party

devoid of competent leadership, filled with opportunistic sycophantic lackeys, is unhealthy

and cannot fulfill these duties satisfactorily. Unfortunately, none of us, including ordinary

members of our political parties, are happy with the competence and integrity of our

political leadership. Worse, men/women of integrity loathe to be identified with any

political party.

If all the parties produced by a system are degenerating with such vicious leadership then

it cannot be because of a fault with a particular party or a leader. We should suspect that

there is something basically wrong with the system itself rather than with political parties

and/or their leaders. So blaming parties or politicians for our society’s pathetic state and

wishing their extinction are futile. Instead we search and rectify the cause for their

degradation to today’s pathetic level.

Most important factor for a functioning democracy is the belief in democracy and

willingness to practice it by the common man to political parties and Government

agencies. We, the ordinary/uncommitted voters, have time and again demonstrated his

trust and willingness beyond any logical doubt (explained in ‘Awareness’). But political

parties, the most important platforms to manifest common-men’s opinion, do not show

that much enthusiasm towards democracy. Democracy, for our political leaders, is nothing

more than a slogan to disguise their selfish motives – i.e. capture power or be a part of it.

40

40

Those leaders in power never allow free and fair manifestation of democracy in their

party’s internal functions. They suppress inner-party democracy by negating elections and

competition. Instead they practice nomination or manipulate elections, in the name of

consensus and discipline, to fill lower tires of leadership with their lackeys. Occasionally

we hear one or the politician, who perceive he is discriminated by the reigning

leader/caucus, calling for inner-party democracy, accusing leadership of negating it. But

once some how he is made a member of the caucus or a ministerial birth or similar

rewarding positions is doled out, his inner-party democracy concerns would fade away and

he would become an avowed practitioner of its negation.

Inner-party democracy promotes fierce but healthy competition between potential

leaders/aspirants to represent party members at different levels of party leadership

hierarchy and in elections to representative bodies from Panchayats to Parliament.

Competitions, by nature’s ‘law of survival of the fittest’, eliminate incompetents and

promote most competent ones to the higher echelons of party hierarchy and allow the

‘better’ keep rising while ‘good’ fall on the way side. Thus it can produce virile party

leaderships and competent Governments. One who climbs leadership ladders through

competition would not be an indebted lackey of the boss. To ascend in party hierarchy by

competition one has to strive not for mercy and favour of any caucus but for approval by

party members of his better competence in comparison to ones competitors. This

eliminates any compulsion to appease party bosses or to support their undue

manipulations. Appeasement and sycophancy would really become a disqualification in a

competent society.

On the other-hand Negation of inner-party democracy allows party bosses and their

caucuses to nominate their lackeys to positions in party hierarchy. If, in any system, one

achieves authority to appoint and remove his subordinates at his will, general tendency

would be to avoid any one who is capable of posing a threat to ones own position in

future, and to indulge in nepotism or to induct one’s own lackeys - inferior to himself in

competence. Competence and dissidence would never be tolerated instead nepotism,

sycophancy, compliance and loyalty would be promoted.

home

41

41

3-1-1. Character-crisis: By negation of inner-party democracy our political party

machineries and hence the public offices are routinely filled with opportunistic lackeys of

party bosses or caucuses of power brokers, causing character crisis. In such situations can

we expect an organized murmur against this practice from with-in the system? Can we

expect an end to kleptocracy and inefficiency we are plagued with? Would any politician,

whose political career depends on the reigning boss or caucus, dare to raise his voice

against the wrong policies or misdeeds of that leader? Impossible.

That is exactly the curse of our society: Deprivation of competent men of integrity, the

character crisis, in political leadership to challenge the rotten system and the reign of

tainted caucuses. A political leadership hierarchy of in competent lackeys tainted

sycophants would never deliver good to the society. They would twist laws, (look to the

fate of anti-corruption, anti-defection and many other laws enacted to rectify one or the

other ills/symptoms of our degeneration), to meet their vicious schemes.

home

3-1-2. Splits in parties are normally blamed on selfish motives of one or the other leader.

To the contrary, denial of proper channels to express, and strive to achieve, reasonable

selfish motives is the real cause of these splits.

All of us are, and should be, selfish and ambitious to some extend for our survival and

prosperity. Any claim to the contrary is pure hypocrisy. Any competent man would

aspire, and strive for more power in whatever field he is involved in. Unambiguous proof

that one’s competitor is more competent than himself is the only factor by which a

competent aspirant can be restrained. In politics, ability to garner approval of party

members is the proper scale of competence. Members of a party/common-man always

look for competent man to lead/govern them. And they know who is competent and who is

not, who is good and who is not so good in their surroundings; they are willing to express

it given a chance with impunity. The only foolproof rout to evaluate proportions of these

approvals to different aspirants in a party is open competition and election through secret

ballots – i.e. unrestricted practice of inner-party democracy.

When positions in the arty hierarchy are doled out or denied by a leader or caucus at their

will, this opportunity to compare competence of aspirants is denied. Disappointments,

42

42

feeling of discrimination and resultant anger towards the authority are natural. Most

competent and ambitious among them would seek revenge; rally support from others

disappointed like him. Denial of democratic channels to get remedy naturally leads to

open revolt, splits and birth of new parties, weakening parent party – a frequent

occurrence in our politics today. This phenomenon, combined with availability of ready

partners for coalitions at election, cause these splinter groups to thrive.

So strict practice of Inner-party democracy is a prerequisite for any democracy to

produce and promote competent man of integrity to lead it. It would also eliminate main

cause of splits in political parties. If we are to regenerate our political system and society

we would have to ‘make inner-party democracy mandatory to all political parties’.

Election commission or a similar statutory body should be entrusted to supervise its fair

and transparent practice.

It is the only sure way to induct competent men of integrity and character to the leadership

of political parties and from there to the public offices (parliament or other representative

bodies, PM/President and down to panchayaths) to dexterously operate/manage our

system. If that happens, such efficient operators, as prophesied by Dr.Rajendraprasad,

would ‘… deliver good to the society even with a defective constitution…’ Such virtuous

leadership would recharge our lagging morale, provide credible icon to emulate. They

would be competent enough to understand any flaws in the system that hinder the progress

of the society, bold enough to expose them and take measures to rectify them. They would

not hesitate even to change the constitution or the political system itself if it is too

defective for good governance.

home

3-B. Perils of Westminster parliamentary system:

Westminster model parliamentary democracy, not only in India but where ever it is

practiced, is fatally flawed having too many competing, often venal, political parties.

From our neighbouring nations of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal to Briton, the

birthplace of this system and many other countries all over the world are victims of this

43

43

flaw. Hungary, a country in size just 1/30th of India and a unitary society, that started

democracy in 1990 only, has produced 26 parties and coalition governments in just 8 years

under this flawed parliamentary system! Our society, with our innumerable diversities and

vastness combined with the character-crisis in political leadership, is exaggerating

effects of this flaw to disastrous proportions. If we are to address this problem, we should

understand the inherent flaws of this system and its dynamics.

Democracy is identified with the right of the common man to appoint his chief executive

and independence of its three main pillars, namely 1- Legislative, 2- executive, 3-

Judiciary.

Westminster parliamentary system compromises both these vital fundamentals of

Democracy. It hypothecates common-man’s right to appoint his chief executive to

middlemen, legislature members. Executive’s dependence on legislature to get appointed

and for its continuance in power makes it a subservient to legislature. Theoretically it

may be independent but in practice if executive does not heed to the wishes of majority of

legislatures – normally groups controlled by one or the other caucus - they can remove it

with a no-confidence motion.

home

3-2. Indirect v/s Direct Election of Chief Executive

Democracy, by its definition, is a system where common-men would appoint (elect) his

representative to govern him. Chief executive of a government (Prime & Chief Ministers

in parliamentary system) is supposed to be his chief representative, whose qualities –

competence, ideologies, integrity, etc. – are the most deciding factor in the quality of

governance. Competition, in direct elections, between aspirants to become common-men’s

representative exposes candidates to public scrutiny, allowing common-men to evaluate

and elect/appoint the best among them to govern the society. I give credit of the vitality

and prosperity of American society to the (nearly) direct election of their chief executive,

American president.

44

44

Westminster Parliamentary system, which is yet to complete its evolution to full

democracy, hypothecates the above-mentioned democratic right of the common-man to

some middlemen – members of parliament. Firstly public, divided into many small

constituencies, elect few representatives/MPs/MLAs from each constituency through

highest popular votes. Multitude of candidates ‘the highest’ often turns out to be just a

fraction of the votes polled. Then council of these representatives of majority party elects

somebody (not necessarily one among them), through an internal majority vote, as chief-

representative/Chief-/Prime-minister. Scrutiny, if any, of his qualities (or lack of it) is

limited to scrutiny by these middlemen. This system, even if worked without the influence

of any other weaknesses, practically allows one enjoying support of just more than 25% of

total elected representatives (representing much less than theoretical support of 12%

of voters) to govern the society.

This practice is a left over from the old days of evolution of British system, when the

aristocrats/lords and bishops were de-facto council members and were to recommend one

among them as Prime Minister to the King. In course of further evolution to democracy,

common-man wrestled much of the power from Lords and King and invested it on council

of their elected representatives – house of commons/lower house. But they maintained

King. Instead of going for direct election, they maintained the old practice of

recommending one among them as Prime Minister. May be they were skeptical of the

common-man’s wisdom to evaluate and elect the highest executive. That is why I tell that

Westminster parliamentary system is a system that assimilated much of the democratic

values but still, by denying common-men his right to evaluate and directly elect/appoint

his chief representative, refused to grow to full-fledged democracy – stayed frozen in path

of political evolution.

British society inadvertently neutralize the damaging effects of this flaw by appointing

competent men, produced through uncompromising practice of inner-party democracy, as

their representatives – operators of the system. Prime ministerial aspirants of each party

compete between them for the candidacy. Then members of concerned party forums

evaluate and elect one of them bringing out most competent among them as their

candidate. Then these parties face parliamentary elections under the leadership of these

(competent) prime ministerial candidates, subjecting their comparative and individual

45

45

images to Public scrutiny. This allows British voters to evaluate and vote a party with

most competent man as Prime Ministerial candidate. Add to this a parliament with

competent men as its members.

Even though their competent political leadership tries to manage their society dexterously,

their society also could not escape from damages caused by the flaws of the Westminster

parliamentary system manifesting as:

• Instability due to hung parliaments & defections: If one of the parties failed to gain

a clear majority in parliament then none is qualified to form government. Even if a

party gains majority and form Government, still it can lose majority in the house by

defections coalition partners or members of the Prime Minister’s party itself.

• Susceptible to manipulations & inefficiency: Prime Minister’s dependence on MPs’

support (especially that of coalition partners or pressure groups in his own party) to

form a Government and continuance in power allow them to exert extraneous pressure

on him to extract many concessions including ministerial posts.

• Coalitions and Proliferation of political parties: In a hung-parliament two or more

parties combine their strength to produce majority for their common candidate and

form a coalition government. Coalitions give small parties power hugely

disproportionate to their strength. This power and resultant otherwise inaccessible

control of state’s resources are used to attract more followers to their fold allowing

them to grow in strength – at the expense of main parties.

• Splits in political parties: Allocation of ministerial berths being the prerogative of the

PM, and ministerial berths being limited, PM cannot satisfy all aspirants. This leads to

disappointments, internecine between those won a berth and those could not lead to

splits in the party.

But British Society manages such situation much better than ours and limit damages:

because their MPs are competent men of integrity, and are not dependent lackeys of any

leader or caucus, because they ascended in party hierarchy or gained their candidacy

through competition – not through merciful nomination by any party boss, as is the case in

our system, because they are accountable to their voters not to a benevolent boss.

46

46

Our society’s Character crisis in political leadership, created by negation of inner-

party democracy, combined with our innumerable diversities, is aggravating effects

of this flaw.

home

3-2-1. Evaluation of potential candidates to this all-important post: Our Prime/Chief

Ministerial candidates are not subjected to public scrutiny, as parties do not project one. A

history of our last few Prime ministerial appointments (they were not at all elections of

any sort) and removals would reveal how manipulations and sheer luck hoisted them to

and/or toppled them from this high post. Their credibility or lack of it for the post were

never debated or evaluated. Leave alone the opinions of the public, opinion of respective

party members were never sought before appointing or removing one. There were

instances when even MLAs/MPs, elected representatives entrusted to elect or remove a

Govt. in a parliamentary system, were not consulted about installation or removal of a

PM/CM.

Likes, dislikes or aspirations of one or the other caucus were the only factor that mattered

in such events. Then parties issue whips compelling their MPs/MLAs to comply with it.

Charan Sing, Rajeev Gandhi, Chandrasekhar, Narasimha Rao, Deva Gowda, Gujral – all

of them were hoisted quiet unexpectedly by manipulations of one or the other political

boss or caucus, and were unceremoniously toppled when they were no more acceptable

because one was not dancing to the tune of the concerned boss/caucus. Mr.Gowda or

Gujral had never lost confidence of the ruling party, Janatha Dal or of ruling coalition,

United Front but were not fitting properly in the scheme/motives of some caucuses. Mr.

Rao was retiring from politics when he was suddenly pulled up and installed as a stopgap

PM, while aspirants/nominees of various caucuses sort out differences to propose one

among them as a consensus candidate. This process also creates disappointed aspirants,

internecine and splits in parties.

Forget about possibilities of pre-election evaluation of possible candidates by the public or

ordinary members of concerned political parties. Even professional analysts cannot do it,

as no one can predict who would be our Prime/Chief Ministerial candidates once the

elections are over. Parties seldom project one as their candidate for this post before

elections or even when project one to attract some votes on his identity (mostly communal

47

47

in states) rarely stick to their word after elections. There is no guaranty that a nominee of

the biggest party would be appointed, it can be a nominee of any one of the coalition

partners. Coalitions are always changing shapes so it can be a nominee of any one of our

innumerable parties. And as parties germinate and change colours every day - who could

keep track of them or their leaders?

Even if somebody succeeded in keeping track of these parties, would it be feasible for any

body to collect information on all of their candidates (above 2000 for parliament) in such a

short time of 20 days or so between finalising candidature and elections? To complicate

the situation further, there is no guaranty that a party would nominate its elected member

(MP/MLA) as Prime/Chief Minister. Mr.Rao or Deva Gowda was not an Member of

Parliament when they were nominated as Prime Ministers. Think of how many voters

outside Deva Gowada’s home state of Karnataka had even heard of him before he was

propped up as Prime Minister! He himself was astonished by the sudden unexpected luck

doled out to him by some political caucuses. So with out knowing whom to evaluate

question of evaluation is absurd.

home

3-2-2. Inefficiency & Susceptibility to Coercion by self-serving pressure groups:

How a Prime Minister, whose survival depends on continued support of unscrupulous

egocentric MPs, always afraid of losing majority can concentrate in governance? Would

not this dependence and insecurity consume his time in planning strategies to assure

sufficient support and counter-strategies to neutralize those trying to topple him? These

fears compel PM to appease power brokers by doling-out ministries to themselves or their

nominees irrespective of their known incompetence or even criminal records and to

acquiesce their misuses of official position and corrupt practices. We are familiar with

instances of unscrupulous group leaders holding Governments (PM/CM) on ransom to get,

in exchange of their continued support, particular ministries to themselves or their

nominees, or some other concessions to meet their vicious schemes or protect their

interests.

A good example of such manipulation or the susceptibility of CM/PM to the outside

pressure is: 1996 Punjab CM had to appointed Thej Prakash Sing, S/o former CM Biyanth

48

48

Sing, as a minister in his ministry even though Thej Prakash had not won an membership

of the legislator. Again he could not get elected to the house within the mandatory six

moths period after becoming a minister. So the caucus took a short cut: Biyanth resigned

and stayed out side for few days and CM inducted him again as a new Minister to exploit

the ‘Six months grace period’.

Also this dependence incapacitates Government from taking bold pragmatic decisions,

especially of good economics, that may not be so populist in short term. Because a section

(or most) of the legislators would not like it as a part of their vote bank would be affected.

Mr. P. Chidambaram, Finance minister in UDF government during 1996-98 admitted this

frustrating effect at the end of his tenure: “1997 was a wasted year, we had everything

going for it, the GDP was set for a record 7.5 percent growth. But due to the positions

taken by some political parties we could not implement our policies”.

Prime Minister and Ministers of Finance, Industry, commerce and Petroleum had

advocated Petroleum products’ price increase on good economics and policy decision

taken earlier by the UDF and Government. For many months it hung fire with intermittent

declarations by ministers on the inevitability of price increase and the damage caused to

economy by illogically lower prices of some products. But nothing happened. Few MPs

supporting Government objected and Government could not amass courage to increase

prices and the left our economy bleeding because, if govt. decided to increase prices, those

MPs could have withdrawn their support causing the Government’s fall.

Petroleum price decision fiasco, or Tej Prakash Sing episode were not an odd events but

almost all vital non-populist decisions had similar fate and almost all PMs/CMs were arm-

twisted to appoint members of one or the other caucus as ministers during, before and after

UDF era – common during any Governments, out side India also, under this system.

I hope the above paragraphs explain reasonably how this particular practice, indirect

election of the chief executive, an inherent flaw of Westminster parliamentary system

expose the Chief executive susceptible to manipulations by unscrupulous Caucuses,

causes inefficiency, incapacitates Government from take bold decisions.

home

49

49

3-2-3. Bangladesh example /Highjacking of state by vested interests: A dangerous trap

hidden in ‘Indirect Election of PM’ was exposed in the event unveiled in Bangladesh

after their elections in 1996. (That was there second national election in about 6 months).

Gen.Ershad Hussain, former president, a convicted on many counts of criminal acts he

committed during his tenure and facing trail in many more cases, were in jail. Begum

Khalida’s Government had even denied parole for him to partake in his Jathiya party’s

election campaign. Hung parliament after elections made Ershed’s Jathiya Party’s 20+

seats, won under his wife Roshan’s leadership, a crucial factor to stop Sheikh Haseena

becoming Prime Minister, her party being four seats short of majority. Khalida and her

caucus, old military generals who were accomplices in the assassination of Mujibur

Rehman and his family members, were afraid of persecution by Haseena. To stop Haseena

from forming a Government they offered Prime Minister’s post to Roshan, Ershad’s wife,

and offered help to withdraw all cases against Ershad if Roshan could agree for a coalition

with Khalida’s party to form a Government. Luckily Roshan/Ershad did not fall in to

Khalida’s trap.

• Were it not similar, but successful, vicious manipulations that ostracized BJP in

1996?

• Were not BJP’s alliances with known criminals in UP and at center in 97 & 98

also such successful manipulations? ‘Sree. Khushabahu Thakre glossing it as

‘Compulsions of Coalition Politics’! Bjp had to give ministries to al 17 or so

MLAS from a party (lok Tantric Congress) to assure their support to keep others

out of power.

The above events are not odd ones but repetitions of many such past and prelude to many

future events in states and center. More disastrous recurrences of such events,

manifestation of hidden dangers of indirect election, are quite imminent.

Let me predict an extreme scenario looming dangerously if this system is allowed to

continue:

50

50

With known venality of our politicians it would not be difficult for our enemies or anti-

national forces (ISI, Jain Brothers, Dawood Ibrahims, Chandra Swamies or the likes) to

induct 20~30 MPs as their proxies in our parliament. Consider that in a hung parliament

this group’s support becomes deciding factor (even a block of 3~4 MPs can be crucial at

times) to stop Congress or BJP (or any other part) from power. In such a scenario:

• Would not Congress or BJP be willing to offer them Ministries of Defense,

Finance, and Interior if they ask for them in exchange of their support to keep the

other out of power?

• 1996 & 98 political manipulations in Delhi, 97 of UP and many more vicious

manipulations committed by our power-hungry politicians of all colors are

pointing to this imminent danger.

What can we, the common-man do in such a situation? Nothing; it would be too late

to act.

home

3-2a. Direct election of the Chief Executive eliminates any middlemen between the

voters and their chief executive. Voters directly elect their chief executive. In this system,

candidates in the fray would be the most competent among aspirants form each party

because they are the ones who attained such stature by continuous multi-layer filtration

through, and won in, inner-party elections of their respective parties.

They, one candidates each form each party, would expose each other to impress upon the

voters of their comparative credibility and competitiveness and lack of it of their

opponent. As there would be only two, at the most three, potential candidates, public and

media can concentrate on a detailed scrutiny (an for a sufficiently prolonged period – from

the primaries to general election) of their images. Therefore probability is very, nearly

foolproof, that weakness, if any, would get exposed, and most competent among them

would get elected.

Once elected, nearly undisturbed tenure is guaranteed in such a system unless an

impeachment is necessitated. Even hung parliaments do not affect the stability of

Government, as it does not need any support form the legislature to continue in power. So,

any compulsions do not exist to doll-out ministries to or to patronize criminal deeds of

51

51

tainted politicians and pressure groups for survival in power. Can select his team even

form out side politics, appoint professional from each discipline to give him counsel and to

head respective departments.

Stability and presence of professionals would produce efficient governance and prosperity

to the society and boost public morale. A vigilant public of high morale and competent

and dedicated political leadership is the best check against any evils, including

corruption, in a society.

• There are not much credible reasons, such as disappointments from aspirants and

resultant grudges, to split a party.

• There is no compulsion for coalitions and pampering small parties or splinter

groups. Devoid of power and pampering such groups would meet an early natural

death.

• That takes away the incentive to split or form a party to fulfill ones selfish motive.

Just by changing over to a ‘Direct election system’ an important cause of Corruption,

Inefficiency, morale decay and proliferation of political parties can be eliminated;

Competence and Stability established.

That is so simple!!! … !!!

What we will lose in exchange is just reign of tainted political caucuses.

But beware. A presidential system devoid of the other two factors, i.e:

1 – A competent leadership hierarchy elected through Inner-party democracy practices

2 – A strong Two/three party system achieved through proportional representative

elections….

… Would not guarantee the desired competence and stability. Many African, southeast

Asian and south American presidential regimes are examples for such undesired factors.

Equador and Bolivia were very unstable with an average life of their presidencies not

more than an year and a half since mid 1990s to 2008. (The Hindu 17-10-2008- Petro-

states and Presidential Power, lead article by Jorge Hein, Vice-president, International

Political science Association. Bolivian ambasido in India…. )

home

52

52

3-2a-1. Electioneering

Presently elections are conducted after resignation of a reigning Govt. There is no

transition period at all. Mostly last few months of incumbency and first few days (even

months) of new Govt. are full of confusion. Reigning Govt., for minimum more than a

month before lection, is restrained form taking policy decisions. Then to a month further

new parliament is squabbling to decide who should be coalition partners, who the PM,

then who the ministers and which portfolio goes to whom. Problems, files for important

decisions, hang fire retarding our growth and even endangering national security.

Election process starts in less than thirty days before voting. That does not provide

sufficient time for the public to evaluate their candidates. There is no debate on any issue.

A party/leader tells some thing on a stage and other party/leader tells unrelated things on

other stages, both mostly demagogic utterances. Even when any party raises any issues of

substance or accuse the other of serious omissions no logical replies are provided by the

opposite. Common-man is at lose on what to or what not to believe. Rallies and rhetoric

speeches just mesmerize and herd them to booths with out a chance for logical evaluation.

Electioneering should start much earlier than in the present system. Final election of Chief

Executive/president should complete more than a month before take-over date. That would

give sufficient time to compose ministerial team and effect smooth transition between the

out-going and incoming teams. Electioneering, declaration to approval of candidature by

election commission should be completed 60 days or more before election date to allow

sufficient time for candidates to canvass and public to evaluate. Campaigns should not be

with rallies and posters but based on debates between candidates on issues using TV as

prime medium. Inner-party election process to elect candidates from each party should

start at least another 2 months before the date of filing nominations.

Fund raising should be transparent, subjected to scrutiny by an independent statutory

authority. No amount collected without receipts bearing details to trace donors if and when

necessary. Bigger amounts, say above Rs. 1000/= or so, through cheques only. That would

eliminate influence of black money in elections.

53

53

home

3-3. Election of members to representative bodies.

Whatever the system, a council of people’s representatives is a must in a democracy. It

acts as a watchdog to any access of the executive and as a legislative body. Hence election

to such councils cannot be avoided.

Perils of Candidate/Party/Constituency ‘Simple Majority’ Election

v/s Virtues of Proportional Representation.

(In India, over 100 candidates often contest a single seat, and with turnouts of about 60 per cent a candidate can win on 10 per cent of the vote. Secondly, there is no direct relation between votes cast and seats won; in the 2005 British general election, the Labour Party won a 67-seat majority, or 55 per cent of the seats, on 35 per cent of the vote. With a 61 per cent turnout, this meant that only 21 per cent of the electorate voted Labour. The main opposition party, the Conservatives, won 32 per cent of the vote but 159 seats fewer than Labour… In the U.K. in 2005, the Liberal Democrats won 22 per cent of the votes but only 62 seats; a proportional system would have given them 143…. It has even happened twice since 1945 that a British party has won the election despite winning fewer votes than another… … Refer Observer research foundation report - The Hindu 13-06-2008)

I am, like most non-partisan readers may be, totally confused at our election times: Should

I vote for an individual for his personal qualities irrespective of the party (quality of the

leadership or ideology of the party) he represent? Or should I vote for the party he

represent for its qualities irrespective of the quality of the candidate it fielded? I think this

is a puzzle without a clear answer faced by almost all sensible, politically uncommitted

voters in India or any other society that practice similar election system based on a

candidate/party/constituency. Other than this confusion there are more serious dangers

hidden in this election system.

home

3-3-1. Distortion of proportions between real voter opinion and its reflection in

representative bodies:

54

54

It is a ‘first past the post grabs all’ system. A minute difference in public support causes

a party win or lose a big chunk of its candidates much disproportionate to the difference in

its public support/voter preference. Plenty of examples can be sighted in each election. In

1996 elections: Even though congress, in Thamil Nadu, bagged 24% of the popular vote it

could not win a single seat from there. Who represented this 24% Thamil voters’ views

and grievances in the parliament? In contrast many regional parties, from Thamil Nad and

other states, with 2 to 6 % or even less votes won seats and even ministerial births in

Central Government. Similarly when 40% congress votes could produce only 9 MPs in

West Bengal while 36% of CPM votes produced 23 MPs. Still worst, in 89 when CPM

managed to bag 27seats with just 38% votes, Congress with 41% votes had to be

satisfied with a paltry 4 seats! Or in Maharastra when 22% votes gave 18 MPs to BJP,

35% votes votes for Congress managed them just 15 MPs! 98 elections saw

Congress, turning the table against BJP in Maharastra and Rajastan with the same

tactics. When one or the other so-called ‘national parties’ were back-stabbing the other

with the help of ‘one-man’ parties or insignificant regional and splinter groups, such

groups grabbed seats and ministerial births at a much higher proportion than their real

strength and grew in stature, mostly at the expense of their benefactor big brother.

All the parties face this frustrating and bizarre phenomenon, caused by this faulty election

system, a dangerous genetic flaw of British system, in all election at one region or the

other. I don’t see how even the most loyal supporter of this election system can rationalize

this bizarre phenomenon and its ill effects on our political parties. Most of the countries

follow similar election system. But their competent leadership, produced by the inner-

party leadership, is keeping its damages in check. There are a few nations where some

kind of proportional representation, with varying degrees, adopted to mitigate this flaw.

Few have a mixed election; i.e. councils with a portion of the members elected through

candidate/party/constituency elections (may be because they were not willing to

completely discard a system in practice) and remaining members elected through

proportional representation system. we should show courage to completely discard this

flawed election system and replace with proportional representative elections.

home

3-3-2. Coalitions: Instead of rectifying this dangerous flaw of our election system, our

opportunistic political leaders were tempted to invent ways to capitalize from it.

55

55

Unmindful of damages it causes to our society and nation, they created a Frankenstein

monster – political coalitions. Through coalitions a party with a slight deficiency of

popular votes compared to its opponent party can make huge gains in its representative

strength – most probably tilt the balance in opposite direction by garnering three or four

percentage votes of groups, mostly a splinter-group from opposite party or

regional/religious/ethnic groups. In the above referenced case of West Bengal CPM made

those positive differences, winning most seats with slight extra margins, helped by 5 or 6

% votes from its coalition partners. This scenario has become so wide spread and an

accepted practice of our political system that all the parties religiously practice and glorify

it as the only viable alternative. This coalition monster is degrading our national parties

through the illicit relation and nurturing the otherwise insignificant groups to undue

stature.

3-3-3. Proliferation of political parties

Parliamentary democracy is fatally flawed, not only in India but wherever it is practices,

of having too many competing, often venal, political parties. Coalitions, mentioned above,

provide these groups - otherwise insignificant regional and religious parties and splinter

groups - undeserved pampering and prominence. In exchange of a very small percentage

of votes these groups snatch benefits highly disproportionate to their popular vote strength,

such as: high number of constituencies for their candidates, ministerial births and even

constitutional amendments to suit their interests. Without these coalitions most of these

groups would have been faded away or stagnated insignificantly. But Power confers

respect, gives control of resources and power and resources attract more followers. Thus

these groups grew in strength at the expense of their own coalition partners.

Coalition politics in my home state, Kerala is a good example for this phenomenon:

For our high literacy, political awareness (quality of awareness is questionable) took root

here earlier than in most other parts of India. We started post freedom era with too many

parties, splits, coalitions, instabilities and other imbroglios identified with this system.

From 1948 to 1951 we had four ministries; and in first seven years we had seven

ministries!!

By early 50s communists had grown to challenge congress and by 1957 they had attained

a slight upper hand in popular vote and contesting without any coalition partner bagged 65

56

56

seats against congress’ 43, and formed their own Government. In 1960 Congress entered

in to a coalition/seat adjustment with Muslim league and PSP to overwhelm the

Communists. (It was not the first coalition. In 1954 Communists had formed a coalition to

oppose congress). Congress succeeded to more than reversing the position: i.e. 63 for

congress and only 29 for communists. But in the course Muslim league managed 11 seats

and speaker’ chair, and PSP bagged 20 seats and and PSP bagged 20 seats (and Chief

Ministership also?).

1965 saw the only election without a coalition in Kerala history. Representative strength

after that election can be regarded as approximate comparative strength of parties with the

present election system. CPM got 41 against Congress’ 36, but most importantly

Muslim league managed only 0ne seat! But Muslim league again gained 14 seats 1967

in coalition with Marxists and 11 seats in 1970 in coalition with CPI and two ministerial

posts in both ministries. Then after each election Kerala had two fronts, one led by

Congress and other by CPM, the Marxists. Religious and regional parties, like Muslim

league, Kerala congress, etc. grew in strength with more representatives and ministerial

posts by frequently changing sides between these coalitions. It is true, with time this

degradation syndrome has not only inflicted these so-called regional and religious parties

also but it has also permeated to the smallest newborn splinter groups too.

Coalitions with DMK/AIADMK in Tamil Nad or with TDP in Andhra pradesh show a bit

more dangerous strain of this phenomenon. There the national parties, Congress or BJP (or

old Janatha Dal) had nearly renounced their right to contest for state legislatives conceding

almost all seats to the regional partner in exchange for the parliamentary seats. This gave

complete superiority, unquestionable control of state machinery and resources, and very

high visibility with so many MLSs to project its power to each and every corner of the

state. In contrast MPs of the national parties, numerically a fraction of that of MLAs, were

in a disadvantageous position compared to the regional partner. So these regional parties

thrived in to unquestionable stature and in the succeeding elections they used this stature

to grab more seats in Parliament also. With these seats in parliament they have grown to

Kingmakers or Giant-killers, strong enough to blackmail Federal Government to concede

their not-so-ethical self-serving schemes. In both these states national parties are a ‘Big

Zeros’ today.

57

57

Story is same all over India with some difference in nuances. Each of you can identify

many similar examples. This phenomenon has degraded our national parties and caused

proliferation of political parties - regional, religious and of many other nuances and

maverick splinter groups - polluting our political horizon. Effect of this flaw is aggravated

in India much more than in other societies because of our innumerable diversities.

home

3-3-4. Exaggeration of our inherent schisms of all nuances, (i.e. religion, caste, region,

ethnicity etc.) threatening our national integrity, is another offshoot of this election system.

Survival instinct prompts every one to exploit as much means as one can for success in

whatever field one is involved. Winning elections are the most important mission of a

politician to expropriate political power. When a candidate is identified with a

constituency only and when his success or failure depends solely on the likes and dislikes

of it’s voters, it is quite natural that political parties and their candidate would be tempted

to exploit peculiarities of that constituency in their favor. Aspirants of all parties from each

constituency would be tempted to pander to the passions of concerned communities,

with whom he can easily identify, to create and maintain or increase their vote banks.

Regional, religious or other splinter groups can pursue this line without fear of losing vote

from other regions/religions/castes etc., as their vote bank is restricted to that particular

community. This phenomenon also compels national parties to field a candidate from the

deciding ethnic/communal group at each constituency. Then in election campaign each

party and candidate unscrupulously pander to passions of the concerned community to get

their votes, thus fomenting and widening schisms of our diversity. Thus these elections

are a prime cause in dividing us and compelling us to identify with a community,

reminding us our differences rather than our commonness as Indians. 50 years of

hypocritical rhetoric of national integration to camouflage their opportunistic exploitation

of caste, creed, language, regionalism and all the available nuances, our perverted political

system and unscrupulous opportunistic politicians have continuously driven wedges into

our diversities; have pushed us to the brink of civil war and disintegration. Should we

continue with this flaw to our disintegration?

home

58

58

3-3-5. Dwarfing politicians to a constituency level instead of projecting them to

appropriate higher levels is another weakness of candidate/party/constituency election

system.

Irrespective of ones stature in our political leadership during elections every politician is

subjected to likes and dislikes of a small constituency. One may be a deemed CM/PM if

his party wins majority. And majority of voters in the whole state/nation may be seeing

him so, want him to lead them. Still, despite all these and more factors in his favor, if for

some reasons majority voters of the small constituency from where he has to contest do

not endorse him he cannot win the respective council seat. One should remember that in

the case of an MP this constituency is just less than half of 1/542 of the entity, nation, he is

projected to lead and the reason for the voters dislike can be his caste, religion, or some

other identity or his unwillingness to pander to the illogic aspirations of a section of that

constituency.

Mr.Achudanadan’s failure in Kerala assembly election of1996 is a good example for this

bizarre phenomenon. He was projected by CPM/left coalition as their Chief Ministerial

candidate. Left coalition won good majority seats partly on his passively flaunted

communal color. But Mr.Achuthandan lost at his constituency, and CPM had to appoint

another person as CM.

It can also manifest vice versa. I.e. Majority voters of the respective whole entity – i.e.

nation/state – may not want a person as their leader/PM/CM but may win elections from

his small home constituency and then through Machiavellian manipulations become

PM/CM to govern that whole entity. There are instances where one is even rejected by the

home constituency and the whole entity; yet got elected from another constituency where

conditions are some more favorable to become leader of the entity, nation/state. Indira

Gandhi is a classic example for this phenomenon. After her failure at her home

constituency and her party’s rout (that is, in parliamentary democracy, rejection of her

leadership by nation) in 1977 national election she got elected from Chikamanglore, a safe

constituency, and became leader of opposition in parliament! Many such examples can be

traced at state levels. Can a system with such a flaw be called a democracy?

home

59

59

3-3-6. Pampering one’s own constituency, often misusing official machinery and public

fund, is another compulsion wrought by this flaw. As mentioned above, our survival

instinct demands us to exploit create/modify environment for our success. So if likes,

dislikes and passions of a particular constituency are critical for a politician’s success it is

his duty to do what ever he can to keep it in his favor. And unscrupulous ones are

unmindful of the damages such deeds would cause to the society as a whole, or even to the

same constituency in the long run; he is just interested in the votes in next election.

Indhira and Rajive were identified, for extra attentions and favors they showered, with

Rai-Bareli and Amethy. Deva Gowda was known as Karnataka PM for his largess to his

home state, but in Karnataka itself he was known a Hassan PM for his extra pampering of

his home constituency. There are endless examples to dig out if anyone intents to. Almost

all ministers at center and states, especially in the recent past, are accused of this practice.

This flaw is compelling MLAs/MPs to attend each weddings and funerals in his

constituency. This also compel them to influence police officers to save criminals and

service department offices such as telephone, electricity and water to arrange connections

for his party men and run for many other sundry (some times illegal/illogical) demands of

their home constituency voters. This diverts their time and attention from their legislative

duties and macro problems of the state/nation, which they are supposed to study and

rectify.

This compulsion has created MLA/MP Funds and quotas in almost everything from

service connections to petrol pumps and public housing and land distribution – cause of

many scams: A discrimination against aspiring politicians and misuse of public resources

to maintain vote-banks for the reigning politicians. If one fails to fulfill these needs of his

party-men they would work against him in elections diverting votes to other candidates in

next elections. This fear of rejection by voters of ones home constituency makes many

leaders to compete from some other constituencies also. Our former Prime Minister Sree

P.V. Narasinha Rao was a victim of this fear. Despite good ratings at national level as

incumbent and future PM, he had to contest from a second constituency, Berhampoore of

Orissa, for fear of alienation of home constituency voters (See Annexe –3). This is a

humiliation to our leaders, especially PM/CM posts. This flaw is hindering our politicians’

60

60

growth as a real national leader through true democratic means, always dragging them and

their priorities to home constituencies.

home

MP’s/MLA’s Fund - denial of equal opportunity : it is supposed to spend for

developments in his constituency at a MP’s/MLA’s discretion. It is often utilized on

schemes to appease his voters, to maintain or increase his vote bank. This practice gives a

discriminatory upper hand to incumbent MLAs and MPs against new entrants– a flagrant

denial of equal opportunity.

CAG report of 98 May-June has exposed this waste/abuse above any logical doubt. It

stated, about 80% or more of the fund was fraudulently used, mostly by unauthorized

persons, on non-developmental projects. Most of it found way to enhance the personal

comforts or bank deposits of the concerned MP or his kin. Many of the projects in this

category were mostly on non-essential ones and left incomplete. Still our politicians of all

hues have got together, forgetting all their ideological differences and animosities to raise

the fund amount to Two crore rupees from the present One crore. How united they are

when it is to enhance their perks, …when it is to loot the nation’ treasury and mulct the

public!!

Most probable objection to this view would be: who would look after local level

problems and developments? My answer is: local developments are simply the duty of

local bodies, the Panchayats, block and District administrations. States and center have

wider and more important turfs to guard.

In a progressing and prosperous society nobody would have to influence officials to get

his due services. And any influencing, be it political pressure or bribery with money or

otherwise , is already a cognizable crime even under today’s rules and regulations.

Poll Violence an increasing phenomenon: It is ever increasingly committed by opposing

candidates during electioneering to defend their vote banks, publicity materials or coerce

voters to vote him, or to scare-away potential voters of opposing candidates. If that factor,

a candidate identifying with a particular constituency (and a particular opponent), is

removed incentive for violence would automatically be eliminated saving much, money

and life, and law &order situation would improve.

61

61

home

3-3-8. Instability through hung parliaments:

This is the most serious damage created by this flawed election system. Instability

syndrome has set in our system. In states it had reared its head even in early Fifties even

with a very limited number of political parties compared to today’s over crowded

imbroglio. Now, with so many parties and weakening of national parties, every party and

leader is nearly convinced that era of single party rule is over and coalitions are here to

stay. Still they are not interested to explore to understand about the flaw that causes this

scenario or bold enough to consider an alternative. Or is it they want the continuance of

this system with full knowledge that it is a flawed one: because they know in a better

competitive system they cannot survive; because they know that there would not be much

room for unethical manipulations to perpetuate their reign?

With the presence of innumerable parties and political groups (no one can stop their

proliferation as far as this system exists) it is futile to expect a respite from hung

parliaments. Hung parliaments have to depend upon coalitions to form governments. That

is a vicious circle – presence of so many parties divide votes necessitating pre-poll

coalitions and hung parliaments; hung parliaments facilitate participation in power for

regional/communal parties; power provide fertile soil for small parties to thrive

aggravating proliferation … perpetuating instability. Change of this system is the only

escape from this vicious circle. Change over to proportional representations to facilitate

a political polarization and presidential form with direct election is the only way to

rectify this flaw.

home

62

62

Proportional Representation/List system: is where each party would depute

representatives to concerned representative bodies in proportion to their popular votes.

Proportions of popular vote and representative strength would be in full consonance so no

Distortion of proportions . All the above anomalies would automatically disappear in

such an election system.

Compulsion for pre-election coalitions do not arise as each party would get its rightful

share. Without coalitions communal parties (regional, religious and ethnic) and splinter

groups cannot exploit the national parties for more seats. Without power such groups

cannot attract and maintain followers, cannot win significant representation in legislative

bodies. Hence they would dither away into oblivion causing a polarization in politics

leaving two strong parties. No need to ban any party.

Because of the prevalence of some strong regional parties it may take two or at the most

three elections to achieve this goal. Weakening or disappearance of communal/regional

parties eliminates possibilities of pandering to communal/regional passions resulting in the

reduction of communal tensions and suppression of schisms.

Proportional Representation/List system does not identify a particular candidate with

any particular constituency. Hence entire evils associate with it – dwarfing politicians,

pampering ones constituency and widening communal schisms, poll violence – would

automatically disappear. Aspiring political leaders and their parties would be tempted to

project themselves to, and identify with, as wider regions as they can. Pampering of any

region or pandering to passions of any community would not be of much use. In fact that

kind of narrow identity would negatively affect ones merit in a list.

But we should not to copy such systems prevailing in few other societies. We should

evolve one to suit our vast, diverse society.

home

Proportional representation suitable to our society:

63

63

Each party participating in elections should submit merit lists of their candidates for each

tire elections, produced through inner-party elections or primaries. They would depute

representatives from concerned priority/merit lists in proportion to popular votes they

gained in general elections. Party with very low (say <10%) votes should not be eligible

for representation - that is to eliminate communal/regional and splinter groups.

To get a balanced representation for different regional and ethnic sections of our vast and

diverse country, to attract new entrants into political leadership and to cull out

incompetent, I recommend a three tires list. That is:

1) One National list - mostly senior leaders already exposed and grown to national stature

with proven high degree of competence, those who had been to the house for more

than three times also can be candidate for this list. But four terms, I think, is the

maximum one should be allowed to include at this stage.

2) 4 or 5 Regional lists, dividing India into as much regions - for second tire leaders with

proven fair competence. Maximum one to be in this stage list should be limited to two.

3) Sub-regional lists, further dividing each region to smaller geographic entities (present

states) – mostly for novices.

There should not be any restriction to listing in higher lists, but seniors should be bared

from listing in lower levels. This would eliminate those not so competent to fight to higher

levels from hanging on in lower tire with their limited influence obstructing entry of new

blood. Better/more competent ones should march ahead to the next tire and not-so-

competent ones should get out and give space to the new entrants to try their competence.

Deputation may be made from each list at designated ratio, say, national, regional, sub-

regional regional at 20:40:40 or 20:30:50 ratio.

Deputation would be strictly on the merit. Merit being the number of votes gained at party

primaries. Higher the votes, higher the ranks in merit list. A rank list is valid till next

general election. When any body leaves his party he automatically lose his nomination.

Any vacancies rose thus or by death of a deputy can be filled deputing next one from the

rank list of the concerned party. This avoid need for any by-elections.

Legislature can be made a continuous body, if deemed fit, half of them from each tire list

retiring at an offset. If half of them are filled with presidential elections are at each 5 years,

the other half should be filled with state Governors’ elections at mid-term to that of

64

64

president presidential. Similarly half of the state councils can be filled with Governor’s

election and the other half with presidential or local body elections.

home

home

5. Constitutional Review

This chapter is an addition to the original text, added to expose the hypocrisy, the lack of

comprehension by our socio-political leaders, including our President and Prime Minister,

and the pretentious-intelligentsia about the maladies of our society, and their mediocre

partisan approach towards the effort to review our constitution to remedy them.

A vituperative squabble is going-on (early 2000) on the merits and demerits of NDA

government’s proposal to appointment a committee to review our constitution and the

contradicting positions taken by our President H.E. Narayanan and Prime Minister

Vajpayee on the issue.

Political instability is now projected by BJP as the prime cause prompting a constitutional

review. They, in the past, especially after the 89-91 instabilities of Janatha-Dal coalition

Government, had time-and-time-again expressed their preference for a changeover to

presidential form of Government from the existing Westminster parliamentary system.

From 1991 onwards it was a permanent feature in their election manifestos. Yet the

following statements show the confusion and inconsistency still prevailing in their views

and their inability to comprehend the weaknesses, including the cause for the instability, of

our political system. Or is not it the manifestation of blatant hypocrisy of our society?

• On 11-11-96 at Desraj memorial lecture, just after the fall of his13-days

ministry, Sree.Vajpyee had riled the Westminster system and its ‘first-past-the-

post’ elections for causing hung parliaments, instability and for its susceptibility

to manipulations. He championed the cause of Presidential form of government

and elections in list/proportional-representative system as a remedy.

65

65

• On 30-1-98, Vajpayee had again expressed preference for Presidential system

to give able and stable government to India but conveniently left out the

proportional representation.

• On 23-1-99, addressing a seminar organized by Law-commission on its

recommendations on election reforms, he came out against its recommendation for

a partial-proportional-representation. He said: ‘… the proportional representation

system has its short-coming which could lead to centralization of control within the

political parties’.

• On 26-1-2000, winced by the unexpected attack by President Narayanan

against the proposal for a Presidential form of Government, demonstrating the

now-famous ‘Hindu-Cowardice’ identified by Rajju Bayya of RSS, he declared in

parliament: ‘the basic structure (?) of the constitution is inviolate’ – implying the

sacrosanctity of Parliamentary form of government.

• Govt./BJP spokes-men, Mr. Arun Jaitly and Sree.Venkia Naidu on 27-1-2000,

giving additional clarification to Vajpayee’s statement, said: “… Westminster

Parliamentary democracy has served nation well for last 50 years. So we, BJP, do

not propose to change it…”

• Sree Advani, 2nd-in-command in the ministry and BJP, said on 26 April1998:

“The Supreme Court in Keshavanand Bharti case has ruled that democracy does

not mean only parliamentary system of government. It could be presidential form

also, though both have plus and minus points…” He had vehemently

argued/campaigned for presidential system in 97 and 98 also.

• Now, probably afraid of the opposition attack – manifestation of the ‘Hindu-

Cowardice’ or blatant opportunism, he also has started to glorify Parliamentary

system.

Despite this long history of their advocacy for presidential form they never came-up with a

convincing analysis to properly identify the factors they perceive as the symptoms of the

degeneration of our society, its relation to Westminster system or the comparative virtues of

presidential form of Government. So, naturally, they cannot be expected to be competent to

identify the basic causes and prescribe a remedy – they have proved it through the above

said contradicting or uncommitted positions on this issue they took from time to time. And I

66

66

am skeptical about futility of - really afraid about the adverse effects that may be caused by -

the solution their committee may come-up-with. This lack of clarity in their positions, and

the resultant utter confusion about the direction they want to take us to, have made this

belated effort to review the constitution a foregone failure before it started. It has also given

some credence to the ‘hidden-agenda’ boggy raised by the vested interests who prefer to

maintain the confusion and degeneration of our society for fulfilling their personal agendas.

Congress party by their words and deeds on this issue, driven by their blind BJP hatred

and power-hunger, is not only wasting a golden opportunity to constructively guide a

national regeneration effort and retrieve some of its lost credibility in the process but also,

though inadvertently, is helping those anti-national vested interests who like to see a week

India. They seem to think that the masses have forgotten that Mrs. Indira Gandhi, whose

legacy they feign to follow, had appointed Swaran Sing Committee in 1976 to review the

constitution with the aim of switching-over to presidential form. And that this constitution

they now try to portray as sacrosanct and foolproof could not prevent declaration of her

autocratic-emergency-rule in 1975. They also are feigning ignorance of the fact that former

Presidents R.Venkattaraman from 1965 onwards and Dr. S.D.Sharma on 21-6-98, Ms.

Mamta Banarjee on 24-4-98, Sree.Vasanth Sathe and Kapil Sibal on -4-98, Mr.

A.R.Anthule on 4-2-98 and Sree Sivaraj Patil, former speaker of Lok-sabha, on 12-4-97 -

all of them congress leaders - had expressed their preference for presidential system to

rectify these imbroglios of coalition politics and its dangerous after effects.

The majority of the common-men, frustrated with the ridiculous imbroglios of our present

system are crying for a change, even though they are skeptical about BJP’s motives. So this

blatant hypocrisy and opportunism of the congress and BJP leaders would further dent

credibility of our politicians. Congress’s further weakening would add another

dangerous dimension – lack of a credible opposition - to our society’s degeneration.

First this would push the BJP leadership to complacence, embolden the fanatics in its

maverick Hindu fronts. This may lead to its weakening or even disintegration,

ultimately eliminating any national party from our political horizon. It would drive the

minorities to the anti-national fanatic organization and would lead to further increase the

regional and caste based parties’ clout, accelerating our disintegration.

67

67

(Dr.Farook Abdulla on 19-1-98, Sree.Chandra Babu Naidu on 29-10-97, Prakash Sing

Badal on 21-5-98, to name few among many other influential non-BJP politicians, had also

made similar demands)

Unfortunately the proponents or the opponents of the move to review constitution never

bothered to give a convincing explanation for their respective positions. And their views

keep changing, depending on who initiate the move, not on the content of the move itself.

Lack of this commitment, I think is the manifestation of the ‘Hindu Cowardice’ (‘Hindu’

here do not mean the religion, but in its wider sense as Indians) exposed at the ridiculous

‘Kandahar surrender’. The contrast between our cowardice and the boldness of our

enemies, highlighted by the stubborn stand taken by the Afghan Government and the

success they achieved in handling of highjack of their own flight just a few weeks later, has

rubbed more salt on to shameful wounds on our national pride.

Neither our President seems to be anything different.

• President, who is supposed to remain above controversy, had jumped into take

sides in this controversy

• He told on 26-1-200 at the joint session of the parliament that ‘it is not the

constitution that has failed us but it is we who have defeated the constitution’. He

added, quoting Dr. Rajendra Prasad, that the constitution failed to deliver because

of the inferior quality of its operators, our elected representatives. So there is no

need for a constitutional review.

Every patriot is concerned about deterioration of the quality of our elected representatives.

Majority of them, no doubt, are tainted opportunistic sycophants, vicious manipulators and

lackeys of one or the other caucus. Their behavior in the representative bodies is the

telling proof for their disregard to democracy and rule of the law. Instead of indulging in

gentlemanly deliberations in the house on the issues and respecting the verdict of the

majority they always resort to ridiculously acrimonious fights to physically obstruct

meaningful discussions/voting on issues they do not agree with. They have vitiated our

political environment to such disgusting levels that gentleman abhor to be identified with

any political party, thus surrendering the Political turf clear to this vicious genus of

politicians for manipulations with out fear and hindrance.

68

68

Now being part of this controversy our President had the moral obligation to clarify the

following doubts:

1. If the constitution is so foolproof, not needing any change, how could anybody

defeat it? And why did we made 80 + changes in the past to such a constitution?

2. What are the checks in our constitution to assure the quality of our elected

representatives, which he admitted being defective? How/where those checks, if

any, failed?

3. Is not it a flawed constitution/political-system producing vicious operators to

manipulate it?

4. What else, other than a constitutional amendment (review), do he propose to assure

the quality of our elected representatives?

5. Why should he confer such sacrocanctity to constitution? ‘To err is humane’.

Were Sree. Aambedkar and co., members of constituent assembly, ‘Supper-

Humans’? Had not even its preamble altered in 1976 with addition of Socialism?

Sacrosanct Constitution…!!

……… to be continued ….

home

Often raised arguments against Presidential form of Government:

Presidential form is generally projected as a system easily to slip into an autocracy. But

the America, a society with longest history of presidential system had never slipped in into

autocratic rule in its more than 200 years of practice; whereas our society, with the highly

praised Westminster System had slipped in to an autocracy in 25 years of its existence.

Our neighbor Pakistan had fell into marial law rules during the practice of Westminster

parliamentary system. Similarly there were instances of nations with presidential systems

also slipping to autocracy.

I would like to stress that any system irrespective of nuances of democracy it practice can

fall into autocratic rules by opportunistic politicians or military bosses if it lacks proper

69

69

checks. Most important check is a hierarchy of competent political leadership. Our own

1975 experience was facilitated by the absence of competent second and third or lower

leadership in congress. Indhira Gandhi had purged all those capable of standing up against

her through 1969 coup and thereafter filled up all the leadership hierarchy by her lackeys

through nominations thereafter.

…. To be Continued …

Annexe-1

Conservatives and labour had been the dominant forces in their politics. Even thought

small parties had formed now and then they have failed to take root and grow (except an

occasional spurt by Liberal Democrats) to threaten the main patties. Unitary character and

comparatively smaller size of British society can be attributed for this. Yet many parties

(7+) have kept their presence to nag the stability of governments. Briton also had

produced hung parliament during 1976-79 when the labour Govt., always under threat of

being toppled, survived on the mercy of one or the other minor parties. Last parliament

was hanging on a paper-thin majority saved by the fractured opposition of seven parties.

One treasury MP exploited this situation, during a no confidence vote, to extract a huge

loan for his home constituency (not for his personal use because he was elected and

accountable to his party workers at that constituency) in exchange of his continued support

for Govt. An opposition party with just nine MPs, UU, had extracted their pound of flesh

for abstaining from ‘no’ vote. And the party whips had used nasty tricks, comparable to

our JMM and many other vote buying episodes, by abusing pairing arrangements to hang

on to power.

By the way I am of the view that Britain has never grown to a full democracy. Its present

parliament is the continuity of an advisory council of church leaders and lords constituted

to help the King. Gradually it grew in size and power acquiring many modern democratic

values. But it never dumped its advisory structure and the King; or modified its old

representation norms. Refused to grow to a full democracy.

70

70

With all these inherent weakness their political leaders have succeeded in providing stable

and efficient Governance. With similar systems, how they are producing competent

leadership while we do just opposite by electing the self-seeking opportunistic sycophants

and lackeys causing character crisis in leadership and moral-decay of mass? Political

parties in Briton had been practising strict inner-party democracy, the rejuvenating life-

blood and oxygen of democracy itself. As the practice is the law there they still are

following it uncompromisingly. It was vividly demonstrated just before their last election.

Party bosses were not much interested to give a ticket to sleaze case fame Mr.�Heseltine.

He insisted on his candidature and conservative members of his constituency elected him

at party primary as their candidate. This practice of fierce competition, not sycophancy

like ours, to become the leader is attracting competent men to the political leadership,

producing efficient operators to operate their society. Also the church and the King, weak

though, are providing a continuity and moral authority. Above all, compared to ours,

Briton is a nearly unitary society in all aspects: Culturally, linguistically, geographically

and religiously it is nearly unitary.

home

Annex 2

For nearly two decades after independence our system also worked nearly flawlessly,

mostly because of the presence of competent men of integrity and character, the dedicated

freedom fighters, in considerable strength in congress and other parties. Inner-party

democracy was in practice (limited, camouflaged, manipulations were always there).

Hence splits in parties on personal ambitions were unheard of. In the final days of Nehru

era back, room intrigues started to rare their head through now infamous Kamaraj plan.

Things took a sudden bad turn with the 1969 split in the congress, which purged old

guards; more exactly old guards purged Indhira, from Congress. Mrs.Indhira Gandhi, the

charismatic demagogue, managed to attract youths with her populist gimmicks to establish

her own party. In her party, today’s Congress (I), she (who championed ‘vote of

conscience’ in pre-split presidential election, in the name of democracy) replaced inner-

party democracy with strong-arm tactics and back room intrigues in party affairs to

marginalize any rising challengers to assure her and her family’s continued hegemony.

Congress being the dominant force then in our political horizon, almost all other

parties and leaders began to emulate all that was happening in congress. In due course

71

71

the term ‘Inner-party democracy’ became bete-noire to our political leaders of all hues.

Back room intrigues and strong-arm tactics, nominations and manipulations in the name of

consensus, got established as the norm. And slowly the character crisis in the political

leader ships set-in filling them with the lackeys of one or the other leader and their

caucuses.

There is no use of blaming anybody, even Indhira Gandhi, for she was a just a medium -

not the cause. She was utilizing facilities allowed by the laws and regulations of the land

(or its absence) to ensure her hegemony. No doubt, if she was more self-disciplined, she

should have avoided this, used her leadership abilities to plug this loophole. As human

beings, with our in-built selfishness, any ambitious leader would have done the same in

similar circumstances.

Lallo Yadhav and Bal Thackrey poignantly declared this weakness of the law just before

1998 general elections by refusing to hold elections in their parties. When compelled they

and many other party leaders, including that of Congress, made a mockery of elections by

nominating their lackeys to form an electoral collage and and such body electing him/them

as the leaders of the party. Really Indiara Gandhi was one of the most competent

manipulators of our contemporary politics.

If proper barriers were in our constitution to inhibit her from the undemocratic

manoeuvres, if Congress party was able to maintain a competent second tire leadership to

check her excesses, her manipulative abilities would have produced many fantastic

positive results to the benefit of the nation and the society. The curse was that she, with

her paranoia, used this weakness in our constitution – inner-party democracy not being

mandatory or constitution being mum on the function of political parties - to purge any

potential challengers to her position. Only leader left in congress was Indiara, the Queen,

all others were reduced to her subjects, her lackeys.

This phenomenon percolated to the grass root for the lackeys at the top of each tire shown

intolerance to any competence bellow them. Emulating their leader, the icon, annihilation

of competence by back room intrigues became the rule rather than exception.

home

72

72

Annexe –3

Rao was unable to visit his constituency frequently and attend day-to-day needs of its

residents. He was fully occupied with very critical national problems: saving India from

disintegration. He took power at a very critical time of our nation. Rajive Gandhi had just

dead. Congress, his party, was a rotten lot with no leader to look up on and with so many

impostors surreptitiously vying for the coveted post, shying away from direct competition

but with daggers drawn to stab challengers from behind. Janatha Dal had proved they

couldn’t be alternative to Congress. There was not a party even as strong as the degraded

and disoriented Congress to take up the responsibility of Governing India. Financially we

were bankrupt – Chandrasekar ministry had to pledge gold to escape defaulting on

international commitments. Punjab and Kashmir were on fire of seperatism. ‘Visala

(Greater) Tamil Eelam’ was being cooked in south in connivance with LTTE from across

the straight. With all these ominous factors looming, CNN, BBC and other foreign media

had came to report disintegration of India. To complete his travails he was heading a

minority government as a stop-gap Prime Minister till one of the impostors will stab others

to declare oneself winner to claim the throne.

So he had not time to spare for his constituency. He had to plan strategies and counter

strategies against the imposters of his party and opposition to continue in power; and to

neutralize the game plans of ISI, LTTE, CIA and many separatist outfits of the country

itself. He had to steer the economy. (He had recruited a good warrior for this front in

Manmohan Sing but Sing was lacking the political skills. So he had to rein Sing from

committing political blunters with economic over-enthusiasm and protect him from

onslaughts of opposition as well that of critics from his own party - as Bagavan Krishnan

was doing to Arjuna at Kurukshethra). It was so critical a time India was not in a position

to enjoy the luxury of a political instability or even an indecisiveness then.

I take this opportunity to register my tributes to Sree Narasinha Rao’s dexterous handling

of a very critical time of our nation, though he had vacillated later. He is one of the best

Prime Minister India has produced, though by chance, till to-date. I strongly believe that

he had taken some decisions and did some deeds, including that of JMM bribery,

liberalization of economy etc. even putting his own image and interests at risk so as to

fulfill his duty of safeguarding the interests of The Nation.

73

73

Back cover

1- Negation of Inner-party Democracy: Hinder induction and promotion of competence

by negating competition. Nominations and manipulations in the name of consensus

allow a party boss or a caucus to nominate their lackeys to party leadership hierarchy,

and from there to legislature and Government. These lackeys cause character crisis in

politics and Govt. These wrong role models/vicious icon breed corruption and cause

moral-decay of mass. Nominations cause splits in parties through disappointed

aspirants.

2- Indirect election of Exe. Head of Government/PM (Remnants of old council of

lords and bishops recommending one among them as PM): Hypothecate democratic

right of common-man to elect/appoint his (chief) representative to govern them to

some middlemen - i.e. MPs/MLAs. Cause instability through hung parliaments.

Compel national parties to seek coalition with small groups. Allow power brokers to

install one of their lackeys in, or topple another from, this post at their will – making it

perpetually susceptible to manipulations.

3- Candidate/Party/Constituency Election System: Cause distortion between

proportions of popular vote and representative strength. Force parties to make

coalitions to by pass or capitalise from this distortion. Coalitions pamper regional and

religious parties and maverick splinter groups, cause proliferation of parties.

Communal consideration in selection of candidates to exploit communal peculiarities

of each constituency. Widen schisms of our diverse society by fomenting communal

passions by candidates and groups to create and maintain vote banks. Dwarf political

leaders to a small constituency. Compel incumbents to pamper ones constituency

misusing public fund.

A waning to us: Examples of how a reigning leader/party can manipulate election

time to his favour in a flawed system. Quote from news reports: Hindu 12-11-99

74

74

‘AS EXPECTED, THE Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, has gone in

for a snap poll to secure a fresh mandate to govern the country for another five years.

Though elections were due only in April 2000, it was widely believed that Dr. Mahathir

would call for a poll before the end of 1999 to ensure smooth sailing for his 14-party

Barisan Nasional (National Front).

Since the general election can be held within 11 days, a disoriented Opposition may

not be in a position to put up a fight. All said and done, there can be no major surprises

in the Malaysian elections.

Even if the people have their misgivings or reservations about the Anwar trial, the time

may be too short to provide a viable alternative to Dr. Mahathir, who may be fighting his

last election.

5. How to Achieve these Objectives

A legislation or Constitutional review would have been the best way.

But as such changes would negatively affect the reigning politicians and their

controlling caucus we can not expect them to initiate such a move in

parliament. Any such hope is utopian.

So we should explore other feasible alternatives.

Let us start from the least controversial, easiest to achieve and most vital cause, Negation

of inner-party. It is, as explained earlier, not a system fault; but a component our

politicians added, or omitted, somewhere during the practice. If we achieve bringing back

strict ‘Inner-party Democracy’ practices in our political parties it may become

instrumental to easier achievement of other goals by the presence of a better political

leadership.

Interesting paradox is that a single mainstream political party worth its name can openly

object a demand for inner-party-democracy, as it would go against the grain of

democracy they all pretend to swear-of. At the same time not only it is impossible for

them to initiate a moveto make it mandatory but they would also try their best to obstruct

such move from any corner, as most of them are aware that they would not survive in such

a competitive environment

75

75

As far as I know, our otherwise elaborate constitution is completely blank

about the functioning of political parties. So the easiest way I see is a

Supreme Court directive, in respect of a ‘Public-Interest-Litigation’ to that

effect: issuing and codifying uniform regulations for the political parties

functions from issuance of membership, elections of their office bearers at all

levels and supervision and periodic auditing of their function by statutory

authorities like election commission.

Though it seems impossible while looking from the present scenario,

changeover to Proportional Representation and Presidential System may be

achievable goals just by an amendment to constitution once the virtuous

leadership is in place through inner-party democracy practices. If not we

would have to lead a freedom-struggle-like mass movement to achieve these

goals. In such a situation achievement of such ‘Great Goals’ may not be easy,

may need great leadership and some sacrifices from the masses.

But there is no use of waiting for such a leader to happen. We should try at the

earliest with what ever we can do at our levels. (This book is part of such an effort

– effort to awaken you) Movements with such great goals may create great

leaders or bring out and polish great qualities hidden in one of its practitioners. i

am not prejudging/projecting any one... or I am not projecting myself as a

candidate for such a leadership... it can be one of you... the most competent one.

I am hopeful that there are many great sons of ‘Mother India’ lurking in

ignorance of their qualities and capabilities. So let us start, he may be one

among us, destined to lead us to our cherished goal - A Great India.

‘Uthishttatha, Jagratha, Prapya Varan Nibodhitha’