'Modification to Democracy system in India

[janahitwadi]

I came across a document which advocates party less democracy. I place my thinking here.

Party less democracy could suffer because of the instability of the Government. All members would work for their personal benefits rather than a common goal. They would never agree on any issue as every member would apply his/her own criteria to stay in power. Chaos experienced at party level would be seen at the Government level.
Party system has many advantages and the system should continue.

Major issues need to be addressed are:

Corruption
Defection
Capability of a member
Stability
Performance
Party less system of politicsThese issues can be addressed as under:
Corruption

All election expenditure including that for propaganda be borne by the state.
Those elected as Independents shall not hold any office of profit in Government or Semi-Government.Defection

Loyalty to a party (or independent) be a criteria of eligibility to contest elections. Say on the day of filing nomination
for election the candidate must be a member of a political party (or independent) for a continuous period of 6 years Loyal to a Party.
Constituencies should be fixed as per Tehsil (for State Vidhan Sabha) and District (for Lok Sabha). Elected representative shall be 'Palak Mantri' of rank of Minister of State.Capability of a member

Application of a candidate for election must be supported by 0.1% of listed voters for Lok Sabha and 0.5% for Vidhan SabhaStability

If any member or party feels that the ruling Government has lost majority, the member/party must prove their majority in the house. No confidence motion shall not be allowed. The claimants must prove their strength and take over governance.Performance

There should be performance audit once in a year. Result of previous financial years be audited during Jun-Sep period of current financial year and published on Internet and newspapers/periodicals.This is only a framework and needs more detailing.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Could you first make clear, is India a "first past the post system" as in U.K, or do you have "proportional representation"?

I think that the two systems are so different, as to need clarification.

[janahitwadi]

Could you first make clear, is India a "first past the post system" as in U.K, or do you have "proportional representation"?

I think that the two systems are so different, as to need clarification.
There is no proportional representation based on religion. There are certain castes in Hindu religion for whom certain constituencies are reserved. There is a bill pending for reserving certain constituencies for women (33%)

Sorry I didn't get, what is meant by "first past the post system"

[Golem_Ryder]

where the party which has the most votes in a constiuency wins. It can lead to results like: Labour 34% Conservatives 33% Lib Dems 20% Other 13%

[janahitwadi]

Yes in India the same system followed. The winning candidate some times may get just 20% and rest 80% divided among say 10 candidates of other parties. There is a need to find a solution so that candidate of a party must get over 50% of the votes as per the voter list.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Thanks both of you.

I have experienced both systems. Allthough first past the post has it's inherent problems, I feel it is better than P.R.

For example in Germany we have P.R. We have only once, since 1949, had a "real" Government. (i.e more that 51% of the vote. Enabling them to rule alone) As it stands at present, things like the green party have ministers, are basically in the top seats of power, because they form an "alliance" to enable the "main" party to rule.

What proportion of the vote did they get to be THE power broker in the Reichstag?

15% of the vote. Yet they can demand the Government does or does not carry through policys.

What is the use of voting when the party with the lowest amount of votes has the power to run the country?

[PVR]

I came across a document which advocates party less democracy. I place my thinking here.

Party less democracy could suffer because of the instability of the Government. All members would work for their personal benefits rather than a common goal. They would never agree on any issue as every member would apply his/her own criteria to stay in power. Chaos experienced at party level would be seen at the Government level.
Party system has many advantages and the system should continue.

Kindly go through the following article again since this addresses the issue of stability as well as other concerns raised by you.
http://partylessdemocracy2.rediffblogs.com/
Though each elected member would appear to be a loose canon, he would be watched by the people of his/her constituency and the right to recall would make them stick to the purpose for which they were elected. The elected member has to give his best within the elected house as he would be watched by the press and the people as well as his colleagues. Only a good performance record on his part would help him go up the political ladder (like being selected for more responsibilities). No member need to fear about obeying the party high command; he either obeys his conscience and gives his best or takes the dubious route only to be sidelined by his colleagues/pressure groups/people. Thus there will be positive feedback of virtue backing up virtue instead of vice backing up vice, which happens all too frequently in the party-based system.

A conditioned reflex has been established in the minds of people that Democracy is impossible without the party system. This needs to be overcome.

Whether it is the 'first past the post' system or the 'proportional representation' system it is all the same. The elected member is bound to the party system and he has to go along the party-line of thinking, with the concerns of the people who voted him coming next. Any amount of suggestions to improve the party-based system cannot address this basic matter of the voters getting side-lined after the election is over.

[janahitwadi]

von-Scharnhorst, No perfect system exists and may not be possible. However, efforts can be made to make a system more viable. Democracy being the most acceptable system all over the world, efforts are needed to plug holes. In my opinion if we address the areas I brought out we may go nearer to a perfect system

Mr. PVR is advocating party less democracy. I have studied the article he referred already. I did send my comments through e-mail (ideal_democracy@rediffmail.com ) 4 days ago. I didn't receive any response so far.

In my opinion party less democracies has inherent drawbacks. In India presently the Government is not single party, its a coalition of many parties (This in many countries and India is no exception) Prime Minister, head of the Government finds it so difficult to manage as each party considers welfare of its voters. Imagine party less government where there shall be as many number of parties as the number of members. It shall be next to impossible to govern as each of the member shall consider interest of his/her constituency and not the nation as whole. Hence it is preferable to have least number of parties. Each party must believe in and practice democracy within the party. So making each party democratic may be added as an important issue to be considered.

I appeal to members to address issues one by one. This will ensure the discussions more truthful and leading to desirable conclusion.

[TellMeMore]

Political parties destroy democracy. (As you pointed out)
MPs must be elected by copnstituencies, not ideaology.
You say this will clog up the system and VS claims that PR gives (unproportional) power to minority parties, but rather nothing changed than we were driven towards the end-game of any political party (remember that each party's main raison d'etre is to attain and retain power, that's all).
Given the many channels of communication available today (verbal, mail, electronic) I don't see why those aspects fo life which need to be addressed cannot be raised by the public with some kind of trigger (say 500 comments) to bring the issue to the attention of the administration , again rather than a party deciding what's going to happen next. And again rememebr that we already suffer from too much government so anything that keeps them out of our lives has to be for the better (surely).

[janahitwadi]

Mr. TellMeMore, you brought out one more bad property of a political party. I agree political parties wish to stay in power for their own benefits. This aspect also need to be addressed.

My efforts are to analyse and find the drawbacks in democracy. I don't wish to criticize and blame some one. I wish to find a solution. It is necessary to first accept democracy is a preferred system of governance over other available systems. If we accept this we proceed further to analyse. I have analysed to some extent and found a few issues which need attention. There may be more issues. I wish to deal with one issue at a time. If you agree we should take first aspect of 'corruption' and proceed on this aspect.

I make a statement 'Election expenditure is a root cause of corruption' Any one wish to discuss this aspect and suggest solutions?

[TellMeMore]

may I make one point for your consideration.
Your claim democracy is the preferred solution. Personally I believe a benign dictatorship is the best solution. The main problem with democracy is that my vote carries the same weight as some slobbering hulk who spends his life sat watching television or 'out of it' on drugs/drink. That's hardly fair.
Oh, I forgot to add, the really best solution is a benign dictatorship with me as dictator ;)

Anyways, to your first point.
Election expenditure is a root cause of corruption.
Although it should not be, it actually is. In the UK both of the main parties are bankrupt, or at least 10s of millions of pounds in debt. Now I wonder why it is that those parties can continue to trade? If your company does not trade solvently it can be struck off the companies list and you can be held personally responsible for debts accrued to your company, but political parties can keep going. Oh,well.
The reason they are broke is because of the cost of persuasive lying, whoops, I meant of electioneering. You may know, or not, that the government are currently raising the idea that taxpayers should fund political parties. In other words steal more taxpayers' money to enable them to stay in power to, err, steal more taxpayers' money.
To run an election campaign, each party should be funded by those who choose to fund them, and they should cut their cloth to suit their purse.
In truth both parties are getting money from donors who want something in return. It is still possible that the PM could yet be charged under the 1925 act relating to selling seats in the House of Lords.
In short (sorry I rambled a bit), election campaigning should not lead to corruption, but actually it does (perhaps that's because politicians themselves are corrupt.)

[von-Scharnhorst]

What do you both think of the Swiss system of "Government by referendum"?

This is more or les what Tel me more suggested with his quote;
I don't see why those aspects fo life which need to be addressed cannot be raised by the public with some kind of trigger (say 500 comments) to bring the issue to the attention of the administration ,
I think the figure in Switzeland is 1000, but if you get so many signatures on a petition, then they have a national referendum.

Could that work in countrys with large populations, such as India? I don't really know. But what do you think?

[Crowly]

In a country like India, with no real centralised database, nor even an accurate national census, what possible hope would such an easily abused system have?

[von-Scharnhorst]

I would tend to agree that the sstem is open to abuse. It does also have the problem of being able to be hijacked by "Self interest" groups. But I think for smll (in number) countrys, then it is a viable alternative.

I think it could work in U.K, Denmark, Sweden and Germany, for instance.

[janahitwadi]

My present thinking is on aspect of 'Corruption' Mr. TellMeMore agrees that election expenditure needs donations and whoever parts with his/her money looks forward for compensation. The logical conclusion is the political parties are indebted to certain persons/companies and they are forced compensate them. There may be more reasons for corruption. However this is the major reason. So 'election expenditure leads to corruption'

In my opinion instead of indirectly sharing this expenditure, the government should share the expenditure directly.

This will need to decide on the procedure for

Recognising parties/independent candidates for election.
Type of propaganda drive.
and may be some thing more.Whoever wish to add to this list is welcome. We should proceed further to consider each of the aspects first individually and finally as a whole.

I sincerely request all to contribute.

[PVR]

Mr. Janahitwadi, your systematic approach is welcome.

The root of all problems in today's politics is lack of conscientious thought and action among the politicians. As long as a loop hole is available giving scope to such activity, which the party-based system provides, then any amount of modification of the present laws would not suffice.

The party-based system puts a premium on compromise to fall in line with the party-line of thinking. The partyless system puts the premium on honesty and integrity not only on the part of the elected members but also requires the voters to exercise their vigil (so that they can recall the candidate if necessary) and discrimination while voting.

Once again I wish to emphasize that 'party-based governance' should go; this means that the elected members can be members of a political party but within the elected house the distinction based on party would not be there. This would be similar to members belonging to different religions, but within the (secular) government religion having no role. 'Party-based line of thinking' may still be needed to facilitate intellectual discussion on the pros and cons of a particular policy.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, your systematic approach is welcome.

The root of all problems in today's politics is lack of conscientious thought and action among the politicians. As long as a loop hole is available giving scope to such activity, which the party-based system provides, then any amount of modification of the present laws would not suffice. ....
There is no harm in accepting party less Government for a moment. Thank you Mr. PVR for saying 'my approach is systematic' My argument is 'election expenditure is one of the root causes of corruption' This has been accepted by all so far. Whether it is party based or party less Government this issue would not change, unless any one feels elections system is not necessary. So let us discuss this issue. My thinking is propaganda expenditure be born by the 'State' So there is requirement to find 'what should be the authorised propaganda expenditure?'

In my opinion 'performance of a candidate' should be adequate to be known by the voters. A standard form should be devised for past performance and future performance of the candidate. This form should include the following and more.

Financial position of the candidate (Income and wealth tax returns for past 5 to 10 years)
Bio-data/Resume of the candidate (standard form is needed for this)
Change of faith (party or independent) with reasons, since the time the candidate in social/political life.
Achievements of the candidate in social/political life.
Plan of action for future, irrespective whether elected or defeated in elections.
Undertaking form the candidate that in case he/she changes faith would resign and shall not contest any elections for at least 6 years in future.
Add more, if you find different aspect than covered above.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Bio-data/Resume of the candidate
Are we talking about voting for them or eating them?What the Hel do you neeed "bio data" for?

[janahitwadi]

We choose our representative to serve us properly. We can take a decision to employ him/her or not based on various factors. Bio-data provides information about the candidate.

[von-Scharnhorst]

What? like whether he is of "the correct race", or something?

Do we only accept 6 foot tall blue eyed sihks, or what?

Sounds like something the nazis would have thought up to me.

Bio data is bollocks.

[janahitwadi]

What? like whether he is of "the correct race", or something? Do we only accept 6 foot tall blue eyed sihks, or what? Sounds like something the nazis would have thought up to me.
Bio data is bollocks.
There are more aspects. We can elaborate those.

[von-Scharnhorst]

We can elaborate those.

Well please feel free. You havn't so far.

The question remains; WHAT?

[janahitwadi]

Expenditure for propaganda of eligible candidates should be borne by the state (In fact it is always borne by the state even at present but it is indirectly). Propaganda should be the form of a paper book, electronic book, audio and video, debates on common platform, lectures and hoardings. If one finds some more methods those should be welcome.

[PVR]

I think the above discussion relates to a partyless democracy scenario (in the present party-based system the party decides the candidates). The State bearing the expenditure related to elections is the ideal situation and this will be agreeable to all only in a partyless democracy.

Only when all the candidates are independents (including those having a party affiliation) can the political parties be discouraged from pouring money into the election campaign. If they still covertly back a candidate they only stand to lose as the candidate if elected, being an independent, is not bound by the dictates of the supporting party.

Thus the cycle of political parties trying to 'earn' back the money poured into election campaigns after they come to power and trying to 'earn' while in power to support the next election campaign is broken.

[von-Scharnhorst]

(in the present party-based system the party decides the candidates).
The answer I have heard to that is "You want to have a hand in choosing the candidate? Then join the party and have a say in it.)

[janahitwadi]

I think the above discussion relates to a partyless democracy scenario (in the present party-based system the party decides the candidates). The State bearing the expenditure related to elections is the ideal situation and this will be agreeable to all only in a partyless democracy.......
Let us concentrate at present on the propaganda expenditure. As you say expenditure, if borne by the state, would be ideal. When state has to bear the expenditure there must be clear cut ideas on propaganda. What should be authorised expenditure. Please feel free to add or subtract any of the items of propaganda. Be sure your point of 'party less' also would be discussed at appropriate time. Mr. von- Scharnhorst has given you a solution.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Janhitwadi. You get two, or more, people who have similar views, they will form together. It is simply "human".

The greater "self interest".

How do you ensure that these groups do not end up as political party's again?

Please do not go off into the many souls of Siva. I think that is great as well. But Politics is not religion.

[janahitwadi]

Janhitwadi. You get two, or more, people who have similar views, they will form together. It is simply "human".

The greater "self interest".

How do you ensure that these groups do not end up as political party's again?

Please do not go off into the many souls of Siva. I think that is great as well. But Politics is not religion.
In discussion concentration is needed on more important point. PVR is so obsessed with idea of party less governance he is not ready to discuss any other aspect. Requirement is discussions should proceed on aspects where a consensus is likely to be reached first and focus on those where there would be differences would be later. I am trying to keep discussion proceed.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Sorry, I got mixed up who was arguing what there. Janahitwadi, Yes I agree with YOU.

U.K, and Germany have a system of local "councillors", I presume India does too? Here you get MANY more "indipendants" and they really DO make a differnce to local issues.

How to apply that to the national level is a problem worth finding a solution to.

[janahitwadi]

In India strength of Independent MPs is negligible. Almost every MP belongs to some party or other. However, number of parties is too many. There are parties who have less than 5 MPs in total strength of 539 MPs. Although defection has been made difficult still they find ways to defect. The problem is at the time of filing nomination for election candidates who do not get ticket for contesting election defect to another party who offer them ticket or contest the election as an Independent. Change of faith is so easy at this point of time.

[von-Scharnhorst]

In U.K, it is not that easy to change party, but it does happen.

I have been wondering what would happen if one party won the general election, and two months later all defected to the opposition.

I can NOT find any rule that forbids it.

[PVR]

Janhitwadi. You get two, or more, people who have similar views, they will form together. It is simply "human".

The greater "self interest".

How do you ensure that these groups do not end up as political party's again?

Mr. von-Scharnhorst, since this question relates to what I had been saying, let me answer it.
People having a similar view do end up as a group. That is quite natural. Let them end up as a political party if they want. But it does not affect the dynamics of everyone being 'independents' within the elected house (in the partyless democracy scenario).

Mr. Janahitwadi, I am only raising relevant issues that are meaningful to the discussion. Kindly proceed with your evaluation of party-based scenario. Since I am convinced about the futility of party-based democracy I do not want to add to the discussion about its pros and cons.

[von-Scharnhorst]

There are more than two people on this thread, and all topics are open to all members.

If I wish to answer a question I will. If you wish to have a private discussion use the P.M feature.

Remember that.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, I am only raising relevant issues that are meaningful to the discussion. Kindly proceed with your evaluation of party-based scenario. Since I am convinced about the futility of party-based democracy I do not want to add to the discussion about its pros and cons.
Mr. PVR, we are far off from the system of political party or no party. I made it clear the discussion is on 'Democracy' Party or no party also would be one of the aspect of discussions. I expressed my opinion on election expenditure to be borne by the State to avoid corruption. This is the first aspect of discussions. I assure you I will add 6th aspect Party less system. Let us come to conclusion on this aspect so we switch over to aspect No. 2.

[janahitwadi]

There are more than two people on this thread, and all topics are open to all members.....
I agree with you. This is a forum. Religion of forum must be followed. All members have right to express. In my opinion I will welcome many more to join this discussions. In fact I will feel honoured if many more join this thread.

As regard your point of 'defection' in UK, we have in India a law to curb defection. However, politicians find loop holes and defections do take place. The next aspect I would put my thinking about is 'defection. I am waiting for concluding discussion on 'election expenditure to be borne by the state'

[von-Scharnhorst]

I am waiting for concluding discussion on 'election expenditure to be borne by the state'
Hand in hand with the total ban of out side, or donation funding, then yes.

It would also make the partys more mindfull of wastage. The recent farce in U.K for example, where the Conservatives payed 40,000 pound for a new logo, and the artist came up with a crayon scribble that was meant to look like a tree. To be frank, I have seen better efforts on pre school nursery walls.

But I can also see the problem of who gets money.

For example, if a party came out heavily in favour of a controvercial topic, such as suporting abortion. Why should the money of some one, who seriously moraly believes that this is wrong, go to that party?

[janahitwadi]

A set procedure is needed about method of propaganda common for all parties and independent candidates. The expenditure shall be borne by the state. In order to shorten list of candidates some filters are needed.

In my opinion first filter should be the candidate gets support from say 1% of voters as per approves voter list. Candidate must produce written document in support of this.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Actualy, what your describing sounds very much like the Swiss system.

O.K, the Government makes law, etc. BUT if, I think it is 1000 signtures are recieved, then the people of Switzerland get to vote on the question in a National referendum.

But Switzerland has a small population. Would it work in India, or even somewhere like Germany with only 80 million people?

[Marc]

A set procedure is needed about method of propaganda common for all parties and independent candidates..
I read the entire thread. You have considered only Propaganda expenditure. What happens to other expenditure? The party has to depend on donations for that. So the corruption continues.

[janahitwadi]

Actualy, what your describing sounds very much like the Swiss system. O.K, the Government makes law, etc. BUT if, I think it is 1000 signtures are recieved, then the people of Switzerland get to vote on the question in a National referendum.
But Switzerland has a small population. Would it work in India, or even somewhere like Germany with only 80 million people?
I have no information about Swiss system. However, what I gather from your post appears to be different than my thinking. I am talking about support of people to the candidate at the time of filing nomination papers for an election. In India parliamentary constitutions consists of total voters around 500000. In some cases they are as big as 700000 voters. 1% of voters means approximately 5000 voters should support the candidature to make a person eligible for contesting an election. This %age could be lesser. This is my personal opinion subject to discussions. If it is considered high the same could be reduced to say 0.5%. Idea is only those candidates who have some mass base should be allowed to contest elections. This would ensure only those who are acceptable to the voters, get a chance to contest elections. To earn acceptance by voters, the candidate would need some performance for cause of the people.

[janahitwadi]

I read the entire thread. You have considered only Propaganda expenditure. What happens to other expenditure? The party has to depend on donations for that. So the corruption continues.
Mr. Marc, I take it you are from west. I would inform you about Indian scenario. India has a tradition to consider king as a protector, selfless governor and is expected to serve people. His authority is derived from his efforts to provide security and living source. There are instances in history wherein tyrant kings have been dethroned by subjects in his kingdom. Kings had their own source of income. Income from people in terms of taxes and personal income were treated separately. Elected representative is considered similar to the old time king in India.

My suggestion is whoever wishes to represent people in the government should start consultancy services. Persons working in these establishments would become active supporters of the politician. Part of the income earned from these services be given to the politician to meet his/her other needs, money needed to keep contact with people and work for causes of people.

This doesn't mean the politician should not have his own source of income. He must work for his own bread. Aurangzeb, although a tyrant emperor, used to stitch caps to fulfil his self needs. Politicians should take this characteristic from the inherited history.

In no case the government should take responsibilities of other than election expenditure of the candidates. Similarly no politician be allowed to accept donations from an individual or company for his/her social service needs.

[janahitwadi]

Defection even on day of election results had been very common. Parties used to by candidates from other parties or Independents to increase their strength. There had been a law passed against this practice. Elected member has to resign if he/she changes faith. This has resulted in some control but still the evil is not fully eradicated. A solution is needed to get rid of this evil practice.

Major reason for defection is to become minister in the Government. In coalition government berth in ministry is possible with out joining some other party. Both of these aspects must be considered to combat change of faith.

In my opinion following may be added in the anti-defection law.

Member who changes faith after election shall resign and shall not contest any election for 6 years from date of resignation.
Member if supports some other party in a coalition government shall not occupy any office of in the Government or semi-government organisation for a period of six years.
No member can support any other government during his/her tenure as a member other than supported earlier.
More additions invited.

[Marc]

In my opinion following may be added in the anti-defection law.

Member if supports some other party in a coalition government shall not occupy any office of in the Government or semi-government organisation for a period of six years.
No member can support any other government during his/her tenure as a member other than supported earlier.

These are ideal conditions. Would it be possible to enforce in practice? Your 3rd criteria needs more explanation. If a member finds the party he supported is doing nothing would like to support some other party. You are suggesting he should pay for it.

[von-Scharnhorst]

There must be room, as Marc points out, for a politician to change party on moral grounds.

For example, I do not think the people of the U.S would bother TOO much, about politicians "defecting" from the reps to the dems, over Irak.

[kieronantony]

However, in Britain alot of politicians would be bothered if say a Labour MP went to the BNP, I've never understood that, also Labour would be bothered if a Conservative MP went over the BNP, that also confuses me.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Because of the general "anti BNP propoganda" among the "main partys".

[kieronantony]

Those very parties who are losing votes to the BNP, I see now, and also it is because they are losing popularity, they are scared because their rivals are beating them.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Hmm, second post today where I am able to mention "cornered rats". :D

[janahitwadi]

There must be room, as Marc points out, for a politician to change party on moral grounds.
For example, I do not think the people of the U.S would bother TOO much, about politicians "defecting" from the reps to the dems, over Irak.
I must explain Indian conditions. Here politicians most of the time do not jump to other party on moral grounds. There are to points when they change party. Firstly when ticket is not given by the party and second when a office of profit is not given in the Government or semi-Government organisation. There is hardly any instance when candidates and elected members change their support on moral grounds. Almost all politicians who have some sort of vote bank have a slogan, "If party gives me ticket for election, I belong to the party else either I find another party who offers me ticket or contest election as an independent candidate" This makes it inescapable to have some deterrent in India. May be the punishment can be less in terms of time period say 2 years or so.

I find it so encouraging in this forum to get experience of other countries. I am sure, discussions would lead to near perfect solution.

Mr. kieronantony's dilemma I could not understood. I was all the time thinking the change of faith doesn't exists in UK. I would like to understand what solution is found in UK for this.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Party jumps happen very rarely here as well. The latest I remember is George "the total brain dead idiot, muslim arse licker" Galloway.

[janahitwadi]

Party jumps happen very rarely here as well. The latest I remember is George "the total brain dead idiot, muslim arse licker" Galloway.
No party is confident about even senior members. Politicians jump if they are denied ticket for election or not given office of profit. They consider it as a business or career. So I am convinced, they need punishment

[von-Scharnhorst]

It should deffinately mean a re-election. But it should be on the shoulders of the politician to prove the "jump" was not just a convienience of carreer.

[janahitwadi]

It should deffinately mean a re-election. But it should be on the shoulders of the politician to prove the "jump" was not just a convienience of carreer.
There are some politicians who have jumped to another party, then rejump and again some other party or independent, say over 5 jumps in a period of a week. This cannot be on moral ground. Therefore in India deterrent is must.

I conclude,

Disqualification for 6 years (may be reduced to 3 years or so) to contest any election from the date of change of faith.Next point is about Members from smaller party or independents getting birth in ministry of coalition government. This also is a big problem. They demand not only minister-ship but a specific ministry. If they don't get they withdraw support. They never allow coalition government be stable. Some solution is needed for this too. What are conditions in Germany?

[von-Scharnhorst]

There are some politicians who have jumped to another party, then rejump and again some other party or independent, say over 5 jumps in a period of a week.

In that case then I would agree something needs to be done to stop the practice.

Next point is about Members from smaller party or independents getting birth in ministry of coalition government. This also is a big problem. They demand not only minister-ship but a specific ministry. If they don't get they withdraw support. They never allow coalition government be stable. Some solution is needed for this too. What are conditions in Germany?
I think that is one of the main problems with proportional representation.

Here as well we get partys with a bare minimum (5%) of the vote, yet because the "major party" needs them to make up numbers, they end up with control of ministrys.

Joschka Fiscer was a prime example. The Greens got no where near winning, yet Fischer held ministry for about five years.

[Marc]

I agree with von-Scharnhorst. Small parties get unnecessary importance. The major party has to neglect own agenda and lick these bastards. There is a need to find a solution for this.

[von-Scharnhorst]

To some extent the British and U.S systems have. In that they have a first past the post system.

As far as I recall Britain hasonly ended up with a coilition 3 times. The first and second world wars, which were, obviously abnormal circumstances, and in the 70's there was the "Lib/Lab pact" which enabled Wilson, or Callaghan (?) to continue in office for a bit longer than he would other wise have done.

It is not perfect, but at least it ensures that the party that got most of the votes, is the one that rules; And keeps the underlings from having a say in running the country.

[janahitwadi]

To some extent the British and U.S systems have. In that they have a first past the post system. ..........
It is not perfect, but at least it ensures that the party that got most of the votes, is the one that rules; And keeps the underlings from having a say in running the country.
Coalition government in India at present is headed by major party 'Indian National Congress' there are another 25 parties actively in Government and group of 'Communist Parties' supporting from outside. There are some 'Independent' members too in the Government. Those who have joined the Government appear to be less problematic than the communists supporting from outside. Communists always ensure to retard any action taken by the government. They no the day they withdraw the Government would collapse. They probably are enjoying obstructing reforms which don't fit in their philosophy. They hope to get power on their own during next elections.

I feel proportionate representation is needed. If they get ministry they must share responsibility too. This outside support is having all power to create threat without any responsibility.

[PVR]

Mr. Janahitwadi,
You had listed the following issues for discussion: Corruption, Defection, Capability of a member, Stability and Performance. You have considered corruption and defection so far. It would be fruitful if the discussion also considers whether partyless democracy would address these concerns in a more effective manner.

[Crowly]

Partyless democracy is basically inviting an inefficient morass of political ineptitude.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, You had listed the following issues for discussion: Corruption, Defection, Capability of a member, Stability and Performance. You have considered corruption and defection so far. It would be fruitful if the discussion also considers whether party less democracy would address these concerns in a more effective manner.
I never said no to any views. Mr. Crowley has given his opinion. I tend to agree with him. Do you have some points in fever? Please don't refer any other articles. Please take pains to write your own opinion. I hope you will help me.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. PVR, probably you missed my point 'Palak Mantri' i.e. 'Guardian Minister' Every elected member would be Guardian Minister of his/her constituency. Those who doesn't like 'party' can contest elections as independents and still be minister and can prove themselves. Let us try to find some solution on other aspects to start with.

[PVR]

Mr. Janahitwadi & Mr.Crowly,
I understand your concern that when everyone is an independent each would be a law unto himself and there would be only chaos within the elected house. Let me explain a scenario in which all the elected members are independents and the house is meeting for the first time.

As is the practice now, a protem speaker will first be elected. Remember the proceedings will be televised and the press will be there watching the proceedings. We can expect the most experienced of the elected members to be chosen for the job. Any unruly behaviour at this stage by the newly elected members would be noted by everybody - the rest of the members as well as the public and the voters of the constituency which elected him. So everyone would try to put up his/her best show to project his best image on others.

Once the protem speaker is elected he would call for proposal of names for election of leader of the house (the PM/CM). You may say that nearly half of the members may be proposed with the other half seconding them. Whatever be the number of proposals, when put to vote, the member getting the maximum number of votes will be getting elected. Thus the member who is experienced, is best known among other members and who has a reputation among the public is likely to get elected. Anyone trying to garner support on narrow grounds like money power, muscle power, race, religion, caste etc. and anyone trying to support such members will be watched by other members and the press. Thus the necessity to build a good image of oneself helps weed out unruly elements. Anyone who throws caution to winds will soon find that he lacks support from other members in all future elections within the house. If a group of members join together and operate then the press is there to expose the matter and the public/voters will be watching; either the member has no chance of getting re-elected from the constituency or he can be recalled before the end of the term.

Once the PM is thus elected, it will be his prerogative to choose his cabinet colleagues. Again he has to adopt fair norms to choose from among the members. Any narrow-minded approach will be watched by other members, press and the public. It will be in his best interests to select the most efficient and reputed from among the members for the ministerial berths.

Once the cabinet is formed and the government starts functioning, it is always in the best interest of any particular minister to select his deputies adopting fair norms. Everyone would try to give his best as one cannot hide behind the 'party line of thinking' and abdicate responsibility. The government once formed would continue as long as it enjoys the support of the majority of members of the house. A regular speaker can be elected once the govt. is formed.

Anyone can bring a 'no-confidence motion' against the government. The member who brings in such a motion, the reasons cited and the debate on the motion would all be watched by everyone (other members, press and public). Any motion brought in for frivolous reasons, any narrow-minded debate would all be 'watched'. Only valid reasons, fair norms would give political dividends. Others may temporarily succeed but over a period of time they will backfire on those who rely on such methods.

Thus the government will be stable; even if it is toppled the next PM would be elected through fair norms as explained above. The dynamics of the house - where every member is a independent, where they are watched by the press and the public - thus favours honesty, efficiency, broad-mindedness and self-improvement.

Over a period of time the partyless system will only improve and it will not deteriorate. Thus every member, whatever be his standing before he gets elected, will have to improve himself if he is to have any future politically. The fear that every member will be a law unto himself in a partyless system is thus without basis on close scrutiny.

[Crowly]

Basically you'd start with all independents, then you'd find people forming blocs against one another, then you'd end up with parties again.

Human nature.

[janahitwadi]

Sorry Mr. Pvr,
I am busy today. I will place my views tomorrow evening.

[PVR]

Basically you'd start with all independents, then you'd find people forming blocs against one another, then you'd end up with parties again.

Human nature.
That's true. Human nature is like, as they say - birds of the same feather flock together. But with the present day awareness about politicians, with tools like televising of proceedings of the house and instant communication, the independents will have to work in the best interests of everybody. Thus the dynamics of the house counters the negative aspests of human nature.

Another thing is that the independents could still be affiliated to a political party, which however do not have a role within the elected house. Thus independents belonging to a particular party can function as a group, but still they have the option to take a independent line without fear of any negative effect. The political parties primary role would be reduced to facilitating intellectual discussion favouring a particular ideology. If it is beneficial then it will find favour with the independent members and the public/voters to whom they will be accountable.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi & Mr.Crowly,
I understand your concern that when everyone is an independent each would be a law unto himself and there would be only chaos within the elected house. Let me explain a scenario in which all the elected members are independents and the house is meeting for the first time.
OK. I am listening.
As is the practice now, a protem speaker will first be elected. Remember the proceedings will be televised and the press will be there watching the proceedings. We can expect the most experienced of the elected members to be chosen for the job. Any unruly behaviour at this stage by the newly elected members would be noted by everybody - the rest of the members as well as the public and the voters of the constituency which elected him. So everyone would try to put up his/her best show to project his best image on others.
I feel you are expecting manners from devils! Just compare the experience of these representatives of people of India during zero hour discussions with what you are intending. Do you think they would behave better?
Once the protem speaker is elected he would call for proposal of names for election of leader of the house (the PM/CM). You may say that nearly half of the members may be proposed with the other half seconding them. Whatever be the number of proposals, when put to vote, the member getting the maximum number of votes will be getting elected. Thus the member who is experienced, is best known among other members and who has a reputation among the public is likely to get elected. Anyone trying to garner support on narrow grounds like money power, muscle power, race, religion, caste etc. and anyone trying to support such members will be watched by other members and the press. Thus the necessity to build a good image of oneself helps weed out unruly elements. Anyone who throws caution to winds will soon find that he lacks support from other members in all future elections within the house. If a group of members join together and operate then the press is there to expose the matter and the public/voters will be watching; either the member has no chance of getting re-elected from the constituency or he can be recalled before the end of the term.
This looks good. However it won't happen in practice. Every member would like to contest. There may be as many contestants as the the total number of members.
Once the PM is thus elected, it will be his prerogative to choose his cabinet colleagues. Again he has to adopt fair norms to choose from among the members. Any narrow-minded approach will be watched by other members, press and the public. It will be in his best interests to select the most efficient and reputed from among the members for the ministerial berths.
The elected members would not be so fair to any one. Each one will fight for his/her own benefits. There shall not be consensus on any issue. Members have chosen politics as career where money can be earned easily. Nothing good can be expected from them.
Once the cabinet is formed and the government starts functioning, it is always in the best interest of any particular minister to select his deputies adopting fair norms. Everyone would try to give his best as one cannot hide behind the 'party line of thinking' and abdicate responsibility. The government once formed would continue as long as it enjoys the support of the majority of members of the house. A regular speaker can be elected once the govt. is formed.
There is bleak possibility of election of leader of the house. Leave aside cabinet.
Anyone can bring a 'no-confidence motion' against the government. The member who brings in such a motion, the reasons cited and the debate on the motion would all be watched by everyone (other members, press and public). Any motion brought in for frivolous reasons, any narrow-minded debate would all be 'watched'. Only valid reasons, fair norms would give political dividends. Others may temporarily succeed but over a period of time they will backfire on those who rely on such methods.
No chance.
Thus the government will be stable; even if it is toppled the next PM would be elected through fair norms as explained above. The dynamics of the house - where every member is a independent, where they are watched by the press and the public - thus favours honesty, efficiency, broad-mindedness and self-improvement.
There would be no 'Government' So no question of stability.
Over a period of time the partyless system will only improve and it will not deteriorate. Thus every member, whatever be his standing before he gets elected, will have to improve himself if he is to have any future politically. The fear that every member will be a law unto himself in a partyless system is thus without basis on close scrutiny.
This can happen when the elected members are selfless and work for nation. There is no chance in present system of choosing members through election.

Mr. PVR, What you suggested would work only in ideal conditions. To make it work what is needed is to modify the election system first. It should start from filing of nomination papers. Rules are needed to filter and ensure only good people contest election. There is provision in election rules to register a vote 'None suitable' However, presently the procedure is complicated. Voter has to ask for a form, fill it and hand over to the election officer of the booth. Most of us do not know such a provision exists. Then none of us is likely to go to polling booth and go through this procedure. Voters like to absent
from voting rather than go for voting.

There is need to simplify this procedure. Election commission should add one more candidate at top of the ballot paper with name "None from below" If this candidate wins then none other would be eligible to contested election.

I advise let us discuss and come to conclusion how to get the best representatives. System of parties or no parties should follow once we reach some conclusion.

[janahitwadi]

Basic need to find selfless representatives. Conditions must be created for good people to join politics first.

[von-Scharnhorst]

The solution is tell your politicians to implement your rules and laws. Why should you feel helpless in your own country?

Or does that not apply to YOU?

[janahitwadi]

Or does that not apply to YOU?
Your reply is to some other post probably related to 'Traitorous acts of British Muslims' Yes we do hammer on politicians not to give loose rope to certain community. This is the reason there had been no riots after recent bomb blast near Muslim cemetery.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Your reply is to some other post probably related to 'Traitorous acts of British Muslims'
I think you are right. Some posts seem to be going astray.

I have sent a message to SteveC.

[janahitwadi]

Primary idea of modifications is to attract good people to politics and make it difficult for selfish brainless persons to survive in politics. Deterrents are needed for the second category of persons.

I have stated a few deterrents and would add one more. Candidate applying for election must not hold any office of profit even in a co-operative society.

[PVR]

Primary idea of modifications is to attract good people to politics and make it difficult for selfish brainless persons to survive in politics. Deterrents are needed for the second category of persons.

I have stated a few deterrents and would add one more. Candidate applying for election must not hold any office of profit even in a co-operative society.
Mr. Janahitwadi, I appreciate your effort to find out deficiencies in the existing system and making suggestions to overcome them. All your suggestions have to be acceptable to the present day politicians, to be of any use. If they are inconvenient to the party-based politicians (as most of them are), then they would all join together cutting across party barriers and see to it that they are ignored. A good example is the recent 'office of profit' issue, where the President returned the bill suggesting modifications. The cabinet simply sent back the bill without any changes and the President had to accept it because of his constitutional obligation.

You have rightly suggested that politics should be made attractive for good people to join and contribute to common good. That is exactly what my line of thinking is all about. There is a limit beyond which common good is no longer attractive to party-based politicians.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, I appreciate your effort to find out deficiencies in the existing system and making suggestions to overcome them. All your suggestions have to be acceptable to the present day politicians, to be of any use. If they are inconvenient to the party-based politicians (as most of them are), then they would all join together cutting across party barriers and see to it that they are ignored. ......
In present party based system how would you bring about transformation to party less system? You yourself saying present parties is an hindrance. They would never allow changes. Then how would you change it?

It is easier to bring about changes in election rules compared to the task you are professing. In my opinion first step should be find solutions to encourage good people to join politics and keep away bad elements. This can be done through modifications to election rules. This can be forced on the Government by people expressing their opinion at various levels. The point can be taken to court of law and judgement on this can be achieved referring to various provisions of the constitution.

Once the representatives are reformed the system reformation would be easier.

[PVR]

In present party based system how would you bring about transformation to party less system? You yourself saying present parties is an hindrance. They would never allow changes. Then how would you change it?

It is easier to bring about changes in election rules compared to the task you are professing. In my opinion first step should be find solutions to encourage good people to join politics and keep away bad elements. This can be done through modifications to election rules. This can be forced on the Government by people expressing their opinion at various levels. The point can be taken to court of law and judgement on this can be achieved referring to various provisions of the constitution.

Once the representatives are reformed the system reformation would be easier.
I agree that it is no easy task to transform to a partyless system. But first there should be general agreement that it is the desirable objective. This can be compared to the situation prevailing a hundred years ago, where most people agreed that it would be in the best interest of the nation, if it was released from foreign rule. On how it was to be attained was the next question. The awareness should first be there.

The need for a truer form of democracy is now world-wide; in that respect it is an international problem. No nation can remain isolated from influences from other nations in present day world. Thus a world wide strategy is called for.

In any case I have made some suggestions in the 'Musings'.

[PVR]

In present party based system how would you bring about transformation to party less system? You yourself saying present parties is an hindrance. They would never allow changes. Then how would you change it?

It is easier to bring about changes in election rules compared to the task you are professing. In my opinion first step should be find solutions to encourage good people to join politics and keep away bad elements. This can be done through modifications to election rules. This can be forced on the Government by people expressing their opinion at various levels. The point can be taken to court of law and judgement on this can be achieved referring to various provisions of the constitution.

Once the representatives are reformed the system reformation would be easier.
I agree that it is no easy task to transform to a partyless system. But first there should be general agreement that it is the desirable objective. This can be compared to the situation prevailing a hundred years ago, where most people agreed that it would be in the best interest of the nation, if it was released from foreign rule. On how it was to be attained was the next question. The awareness should first be there.

The need for a truer form of democracy is now world-wide; in that respect it is an international problem. No nation can remain isolated from influences from other nations in present day world. Thus a world wide strategy is called for.

In any case I have made some suggestions in the 'Musings'.

[janahitwadi]

If there is no way or no solution to bring about a change then the value of change tends to zero. Mr. PVR you need to put up a way how to achieve it. Solution may be difficult but should not be impossible.

[PVR]

If there is no way or no solution to bring about a change then the value of change tends to zero. Mr. PVR you need to put up a way how to achieve it. Solution may be difficult but should not be impossible.
As you have said practicality is important for an idea to be acceptable. But more important is the collective will power to achieve a way. The more profound the change contemplated, the greater is the requirement for will power.

I have outlined the following course of action for consideration in the 'Musings'. It is simple and straight forward. In all ensuing local, state or central elections every voter, believing in the desirability of ushering in partyless system, should vote for the best among the independent candidates in fray, ignoring the party-based candidates. Assuming that the concept becomes more and more popular among the people, at a particular point of time, we can expect the best among the independent candidates to win the election in increasing number of constituencies.

Two things can aid this process. One is to create awareness among the intelligentsia about the necessity for ushering in partyless system. Secondly, the independent candidates through their hard work and competence can demonstrate that they are people-oriented and tuned to the needs of the constituency. This will increase the credibility of the independent candidates in subsequent elections.

If the intelligentsia in a particular constituency can form a 'forum for partyless democracy', once the elections are notified and the schedule announced, they can organize interactive public meetings, where the independent candidates (party-based candidates excluded) are invited to speak about their plans for the constituency. This will aid the voters to choose the best among the independent candidates.

The above course of action will be fully in tune with the constitutional rights of the people. It is independent of whatever the political parties may think about it. All it requires is the awakened collective will power of the people. It may take several rounds of elections for the concept to make an impact but still it is the goal worth aiming at. If there are sufficient number of independent members at the central and state levels then a legislation can be passed to establish the partyless system (by banning party-based election campaigns and party-based grouping within the house) on a permanent basis.

[janahitwadi]

As you have said practicality is important for an idea to be acceptable. But more important is the collective will power to achieve a way. The more profound the change contemplated, the greater is the requirement for will power.
How are you going to build collective will power?

I have outlined the following course of action for consideration in the 'Musings'. It is simple and straight forward. In all ensuing local, state or central elections every voter, believing in the desirability of ushering in partyless system, should vote for the best among the independent candidates in fray, ignoring the party-based candidates. Assuming that the concept becomes more and more popular among the people, at a particular point of time, we can expect the best among the independent candidates to win the election in increasing number of constituencies.
How would you motivate common man voter?

Two things can aid this process. One is to create awareness among the intelligentsia about the necessity for ushering in partyless system. Secondly, the independent candidates through their hard work and competence can demonstrate that they are people-oriented and tuned to the needs of the constituency. This will increase the credibility of the independent candidates in subsequent elections.
It is a common knowledge that intelligentsia is the weakest voter. They do criticise but never vote. It is a lame excuse that all are 'Rogues' So I will refrain from voting.

If the intelligentsia in a particular constituency can form a 'forum for partyless democracy', once the elections are notified and the schedule announced, they can organize interactive public meetings, where the independent candidates (party-based candidates excluded) are invited to speak about their plans for the constituency. This will aid the voters to choose the best among the independent candidates.
'Can form' cannot be answer to any question. It is advise given to a man drowning in river by another siting on the river side.

The above course of action will be fully in tune with the constitutional rights of the people. It is independent of whatever the political parties may think about it. All it requires is the awakened collective will power of the people. It may take several rounds of elections for the concept to make an impact but still it is the goal worth aiming at. If there are sufficient number of independent members at the central and state levels then a legislation can be passed to establish the partyless system (by banning party-based election campaigns and party-based grouping within the house) on a permanent basis.
If a goal is not achieved in short time no one would be impressed by the advise.

I have suggested modification to election process keeping in view to find better candidates. I have two more suggestion which would make even parties to field their candidates as 'independents'

Firstly, election rule 40-9 provides for registering vote 'None of the candidates in the ballot paper list is suitable' This way election rules give authority to voters to reject all candidates. If these votes are in majority, re-election is taken and none of the candidates in the list are allowed to contest again. This rule is not known to almost all public. There is a need to add this candidate in the ballot paper itself. At the top add a candidate 'None from the list below' This would bring results that every one would know this option.

Secondly, in the election manifesto the party or independent candidate must give undertaking 'In case the party (I) fail to produce even 1 result within time frame given by the party (me) all the candidates of the party (I) shall resign and shall not contest any election for a period of 6 years from the date of resignation' If this provision is there, even political parties would field their candidates as Independents.

These provisions can be be implemented easily. Janahit Yachika (public interest writ petition) can be filled in the supreme court for the same. I am thinking of doing so. If I get financial support you will find it soon in supreme court.

[janahitwadi]

As you have said practicality is important for an idea to be acceptable. But more important is the collective will power to achieve a way. The more profound the change contemplated, the greater is the requirement for will power.
How are you going to build collective will power?

I have outlined the following course of action for consideration in the 'Musings'. It is simple and straight forward. In all ensuing local, state or central elections every voter, believing in the desirability of ushering in partyless system, should vote for the best among the independent candidates in fray, ignoring the party-based candidates. Assuming that the concept becomes more and more popular among the people, at a particular point of time, we can expect the best among the independent candidates to win the election in increasing number of constituencies.
How would you motivate common man voter?

Two things can aid this process. One is to create awareness among the intelligentsia about the necessity for ushering in partyless system. Secondly, the independent candidates through their hard work and competence can demonstrate that they are people-oriented and tuned to the needs of the constituency. This will increase the credibility of the independent candidates in subsequent elections.
It is a common knowledge that intelligentsia is the weakest voter. They do criticise but never vote. It is a lame excuse that all are 'Rogues' So I will refrain from voting.

If the intelligentsia in a particular constituency can form a 'forum for partyless democracy', once the elections are notified and the schedule announced, they can organize interactive public meetings, where the independent candidates (party-based candidates excluded) are invited to speak about their plans for the constituency. This will aid the voters to choose the best among the independent candidates.
'Can form' cannot be answer to any question. It is advise given to a man drowning in river by another siting on the river side.

The above course of action will be fully in tune with the constitutional rights of the people. It is independent of whatever the political parties may think about it. All it requires is the awakened collective will power of the people. It may take several rounds of elections for the concept to make an impact but still it is the goal worth aiming at. If there are sufficient number of independent members at the central and state levels then a legislation can be passed to establish the partyless system (by banning party-based election campaigns and party-based grouping within the house) on a permanent basis.
If a goal is not achieved in short time no one would be impressed by the advise.

I have suggested modification to election process keeping in view to find better candidates. I have two more suggestion which would make even parties to field their candidates as 'independents'

Firstly, election rule 40-9 provides for registering vote 'None of the candidates in the ballot paper list is suitable' This way election rules give authority to voters to reject all candidates. If these votes are in majority, re-election is taken and none of the candidates in the list is allowed to contest again. This rule is not known to almost all public. There is a need to add this candidate in the ballot paper itself. At the top add a candidate 'None from the list below' This would bring results that every one would know this option.

Secondly, in the election manifesto the party or independent candidate must give undertaking 'In case the party (I) fail to produce even 1 result within time frame given by the party (me) all the candidates of the party (I) shall resign and shall not contest any election for a period of 6 years from the date of resignation' If this provision is there, even political parties would field their candidates as Independents.

These provisions can be be implemented easily. Janahit Yachika (public interest writ petition) can be filled in the supreme court for the same. I am thinking of doing so. If I get financial support you will find it soon in supreme court.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. PVR, Your dream of party less democracy can be achieved by making provision of Palak Mantri (Guardian Minister) All elected members shall be Guardian Ministers for their respective constituency. Guardian Minister shall be responsible for planning and execution of all projects in his/her constituency.

Would such a provision not make politicians to contest elections as independents?:)

[PVR]

Mr. Janahitwadi, your incisive and constructive criticism has helped advance thinking on 'partyless governance' (this may be a better terminology than 'partyless democracy').
Before going to the first unanswered reply, I don't understand how the provision of 'guardian minister', where every elected member is made responsible for implementation of welfare schemes in each constituency, would make the political parties field all candidates as independents.

You have raised the following pertinent questions regarding ushering in 'partyless governance':
[1] How are you going to build collective will power?
[2] How would you motivate common man voter?
You have also drawn attention to the fact that - "election rule 40-9 provides for registering vote 'None of the candidates in the ballot paper list is suitable' This way election rules give authority to voters to reject all candidates".

I can think of the following plan of action -
To start with, a 'Forum for Partyless Governance' has to be formed (to start with in the cyber world), and an exclusive web site created for the same. This can elaborate upon the merits of 'partyless governance' and how it would change the face of politics and how it can be achieved by the simple use of the 'right to vote' by every citizen, with discrimination, in all ensuing elections.

Secondly, a public interest writ petition can be filed, on behalf of the 'Forum for Partyless Governance' to provide for the inclusion of 'none of the candidates' option in the ballot paper itself so that the voter can make his/her true choice.

The reason for this petition should be stated as follows: Political parties are preventing the printing of 'none of the candidates' option on the ballot paper itself fearing that majority of the voters may choose this option and thus cause embarassment to them. It is the opinion of the 'Forum for Partyless Governance' that given the opportunity and if explained convincingly, most people would prefer 'partyless governance' by voting for the best among the independent candidates. Over the past several years the political parties have projected themselves as the only viable option for the voters to choose from, and have thus denied the constitutional right of the voter to make a free and fair choice. Printing of the option 'none of the candidates' on the ballot paper would give a true measure of the popularity of the political parties. Therefore this option should be available to the voters in each and every election in fulfillment of the Spirit of the Constitution.

Such a petition is bound to create an impact, since legally it would be impossible to counter this argument. This can serve as a rallying point for the silent majority, who would like to see the politics of our times, change for the better. Building of collective will power and motivating the common man voter would become easier after that.

[janahitwadi]

If political parties field their candidates nothing can be done. Two provisions would work for this. Firstly, No party can issue whip for it's members and secondly ruling party if fails to succeed on any issue it shall not be considered as defeat. Some exceptions may be there which you please think and tell all.

Coming to conclusions I start as under:

Constituencies
Administratively India is divided in to states, districts, tehsils, and finally villages. Same structure should be used for forming election constituencies. This should have no bearing on population as the communication has improved many folds. Constituencies for Parliament and State legislative assemblies should be as follows:
1. There are 2 houses of Parliament viz. Lower House (Lok Sabha) of directly elected members and Upper House (Rajya Sabha) of indirectly elected Members. Similar system is followed in states and the Houses are named as Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad respectively.
2. 1 district one member of Lok Sabha and 2 districts 1 member for Rajya Sabha should be accepted. Similarly 1 tehsil 1 member for Vidhan Sabha and 2 tehsil 1 member for Vidhan Parishad should be accepted for Vidhan Parishad. Revision for constituencies should be automatic with revision of districts/tehsils.
3. Bigger towns that is population of 1000000 and above should be divided in to districts and tehsils based on administrative convenience.
4. Members for all houses should be direct.
5. Rajya Sabha and Vidhan Parishad Membership shall be allowed only to professionals in all fields except politics. Educationalists, Industrialists, Engineers, Doctors, Artists, Businessman/woman, Financial Experts, and Religious Leaders etc. only should be allowed to contest membership for these 2 houses. If any professional had been member of any political party and past members of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha (Lower Houses) shall not contest election for Upper Houses.
6. Professional shall be defined as a member of any recognised professional Institute in India or advanced countries in the world.

[PVR]

You have not replied to my suggested plan of action.

[janahitwadi]

You have not replied to my suggested plan of action.
I am now concluding the discussions. You will find my opinion in those conclusions. It may take 3/4 day or a week for the same. I would suggest you to prepare your own conclusions. We can tally and find where we need to modify conclusions.

[janahitwadi]

1. Candidate must prove that at least 0.1% voters in the voters' list for a constituency accept him/her as a member of the house. This may be reduced to 0.05% for upper house. Procedure to prove his/her acceptance by voters must be clearly indicated. Some of the salient points in the procedure are as under:
a) Supporters must have a bank account in a particular nationalised bank in the constitution. This is needed for verification of signatures/thumb impressions of the supporters.
b) Candidate shall not obtain more than 25 signatures on 1 A4 size sheet. This is needed to ensure all signatures are in their own space.
c) Supporters while signing must ensure their name as per voter list, Name of Bank and Place of Branch, Type of Bank Account, Bank Account No. are all legible. Date of filing nomination paper shall be considered as date of signature of the supporters.
d) Any other criteria to ensure proper execution of this clause.
e) Voter shall be allowed to recommend only ONE candidate. If he/she has recommended more than one candidate the recommendation shall be considered invalid and the voter shall loose his/her right to vote in that election.
2. After this clause is accepted as a Law the candidate must have continuous membership of a party (or independent) for a period of 6 years on the date of filing nomination papers for an election. This clause shall be applicable only to those who change faith. This shall not be applicable to those who have changed party (or independent) earlier to implementation of this clause through a law.
3. Candidate seeking election from a constituency must possess good knowledge of the regional language and must be able to speak, read and write in that language.
4. There shall not be any type of reservation for the upper houses.
5. Above criteria shall be in addition to already existing.

[janahitwadi]

Scrutiny of Application and final List of Candidates eligible to contest elections.
1. Nationalised banks shall verify signatures of the voters recommending a candidate within two working days after the banks receive request from the Election Commission.
2. Election Commission shall scrutinise all applications within five working days and bring out any anomaly found, to the notice of the candidate within TWO working days thereafter.
3. Candidates shall be given an opportunity to carry out corrections and submit fresh applications within Five working days after respective candidates are given in writing anomalies observed.
4. Election Commission shall publish final list after adding an unknown candidate at top of the list named "None of the below".
5. Final list so prepared shall be declared in local leading news papers by the Election Commission for information to all.
No candidate shall withdraw his/her name once the list has been published.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, your incisive and constructive criticism has helped advance thinking on 'partyless governance' (this may be a better terminology than 'partyless democracy').
Before going to the first unanswered reply, I don't understand how the provision of 'guardian minister', where every elected member is made responsible for implementation of welfare schemes in each constituency, would make the political parties field all candidates as independents.

You have raised the following pertinent questions regarding ushering in 'partyless governance':
[1] How are you going to build collective will power?
[2] How would you motivate common man voter?
You have also drawn attention to the fact that - "election rule 40-9 provides for registering vote 'None of the candidates in the ballot paper list is suitable' This way election rules give authority to voters to reject all candidates".

I can think of the following plan of action -
To start with, a 'Forum for Partyless Governance' has to be formed (to start with in the cyber world), and an exclusive web site created for the same. This can elaborate upon the merits of 'partyless governance' and how it would change the face of politics and how it can be achieved by the simple use of the 'right to vote' by every citizen, with discrimination, in all ensuing elections.

Secondly, a public interest writ petition can be filed, on behalf of the 'Forum for Partyless Governance' to provide for the inclusion of 'none of the candidates' option in the ballot paper itself so that the voter can make his/her true choice.

The reason for this petition should be stated as follows: Political parties are preventing the printing of 'none of the candidates' option on the ballot paper itself fearing that majority of the voters may choose this option and thus cause embarassment to them. It is the opinion of the 'Forum for Partyless Governance' that given the opportunity and if explained convincingly, most people would prefer 'partyless governance' by voting for the best among the independent candidates. Over the past several years the political parties have projected themselves as the only viable option for the voters to choose from, and have thus denied the constitutional right of the voter to make a free and fair choice. Printing of the option 'none of the candidates' on the ballot paper would give a true measure of the popularity of the political parties. Therefore this option should be available to the voters in each and every election in fulfillment of the Spirit of the Constitution.

Such a petition is bound to create an impact, since legally it would be impossible to counter this argument. This can serve as a rallying point for the silent majority, who would like to see the politics of our times, change for the better. Building of collective will power and motivating the common man voter would become easier after that.
A website is a good starter. I have some knowledge about developing web pages. so we can cut expenditure on development. However we still need funds for buying web space, adding to search engines. This may cost from 10000 to 25000 depending on the server and number of search engines we choose. What would you suggest?

[PVR]

A website is a good starter. I have some knowledge about developing web pages. so we can cut expenditure on development. However we still need funds for buying web space, adding to search engines. This may cost from 10000 to 25000 depending on the server and number of search engines we choose. What would you suggest?
I am happy that you agreed on that. Before going into the cost of hosting the web-site, we need to decide on the content of the web-site. I feel that it should be an international effort on lines of ISPO (International Simultaneous Policy Organisation) (http://www.simpol.org/), which also relies on the power of the individual's vote to bring about a change. Do go through the contents as there are some lessons we can learn from it.

The philosophy of ISPO is - by aiming at a more people-friendly governance internationally, eventually it would work out to be people-friendly governance nationally and locally. While good policies can be ensured by this approach, it does not ensure that good people are elected to implement them. Vested interests can take advantage of the leverage provided by the ISPO. 'Partyless Governance' alone can ensure that good people are elected and vested interests are weeded out. An 'International Forum for Partyless Governance' will address this vital issue. The IFPG and the ISPO can compliment and strengthen each other. I hope that members from other countries would contribute their views.

[von-Scharnhorst]

Do you not get free web hosting sites in India? May be worth looking into.

[janahitwadi]

Do you not get free web hosting sites in India? May be worth looking into.
In fact I have a free site http://geocities.com/janahitwadi However it has some limitations. It cannot be placed on search engine. Then there are advertisements. So there is a possibility the site may not attract any one. A paid site is better to avoid these things.

If you come across a free site without hassle please let me know.

[janahitwadi]

Government shall bear all the legal expenditure for this as per the rules approved. Model rules may include following.
1. Government shall prepare constituency wise booklets covering full information given by the candidates in their respective application form.
2. This information also shall be reproduced in electronic media such as cassette and CD. Voice of Government artistes working for radio/TV may be used for recording.
3. Government shall provide place and audio aids (like loud speakers) for all candidates at certain selected places for talking to the voters. Date and time for each of the candidates shall be decided by the Government. Advance information shall be given to the candidates in a public press conference held by authorised Government official.
4. Candidates shall be allotted time slot on local radio and TV channel.
5. Government shall put up hoarding showing all candidates with their election symbol and date of voting and place of voting for every polling station. One hoarding per polling station should be the limit.
6. Candidate shall not incur any expenditure during election campaign except for his personal travel.
7. Candidate shall submit his/her income and expenditure statement for the period of election campaign. This information may be used against the candidate any time i.e. during campaign or later.
8. Government should run an advertisement campaign to encourage voters to cast their votes on radio, TV, local news papers etc. This campaign should show voters who have long record of voting in many elections, new voters who have just turned eighteen years, voters from all economical classes etc.

[janahitwadi]

I am happy that you agreed on that. Before going into the cost of hosting the web-site, we need to decide on the content of the web-site. I feel that it should be an international effort on lines of ISPO (International Simultaneous Policy Organisation) (http://www.simpol.org/), which also relies on the power of the individual's vote to bring about a change. Do go through the contents as there are some lessons we can learn from it.

The philosophy of ISPO is - by aiming at a more people-friendly governance internationally, eventually it would work out to be people-friendly governance nationally and locally. While good policies can be ensured by this approach, it does not ensure that good people are elected to implement them. Vested interests can take advantage of the leverage provided by the ISPO. 'Partyless Governance' alone can ensure that good people are elected and vested interests are weeded out. An 'International Forum for Partyless Governance' will address this vital issue. The IFPG and the ISPO can compliment and strengthen each other. I hope that members from other countries would contribute their views.
I have not studied the pages. Just read introduction. I will need some time.

My aim is to ensure we vote for a good person, an efficient, capable, professional and selfless person. In order to vote such a person he/she must be in the ballot paper. There is a foremost need to create environment so good people contest election. Governance is a later part and it would follow automatically. Root causes for discouraging good people to contest must be removed first.

[janahitwadi]

1. Voters' list must show voter's name, address, voting booth number and location of the booth in state language.
2. Voters' list in state language shall be made available to voters through all revenue offices starting from Gram Panchayat to District Collector at least two weeks in advance of the election date.
3. Voters' lists in state language shall be made available on internet and in electronic media like CD at least two weeks in advance of the election date.
4. Voters' list on CD must be made available by Election Commission to candidates and all political parties whose candidates are contesting election in a particular constituency at least two weeks in advance of the election date.
5. Voters' list on CD should be available in stationery stores for nominal price of say Rs. TEN.

[von-Scharnhorst]

In U.K they have the voters register which lists all those details. By DVD etc, I do not know. But I assume it will be that way now.

Do you feel it importnt to keep the ballot secret?

[janahitwadi]

In U.K they have the voters register which lists all those details. By DVD etc, I do not know. But I assume it will be that way now. Do you feel it importnt to keep the ballot secret?
We do have the details of voters but so far they are with Election Commission. Now it is proposed to be places on internet. VCD/DVD is also under consideration.

In India id ballot is not secret then all criminals would get elected. They will make voters to vote for them on point of gun. We have electronic voting machines now. Counting of votes is done by machine wise. This also is not desirable as the criminals would know which voting booth did not support them. This would be a big threat for free elections. As on today secrecy is a must.

[janahitwadi]

1. Before counting of vote data on all voting machines should be transferred on a computer and final results be available on computer for the entire constituency. Necessary modifications for the computer programme should be undertaken.
2. There should be no information available on segment basis. Segments like area, zone, caste, religion, economic classification etc. shall not be allowed.
3. Pre-election and post-voting surveys shall not be allowed to discuss or indicate voting pattern on basis of caste or religion.

[janahitwadi]

Normally largest single party or coalition with member strength of over Fifty Percent should be invited by the President/Governor, as the case may be for forming Government. President/Governor should find this solely from the election results submitted by the Election Commission. There should be no requirement of satisfying President/Governor regarding majority. Party or coalition partners should prove majority only on floor of the house. A time period of SIX working days should be given for the purpose. In case, the Government fails to get majority support and votes casted against are more than Fifty Percent of the strength of the house those members may be invited to select their leader and approach President/Governor to claim for forming Government within next Six working days.
In case those who opposed the existing Government and fail to put up their claim for forming Government, shall forfeit their membership. Mid term polls shall be held only for those constituencies for electing new representatives. Even after mid term polls if none of the party/coalition obtains majority, the Government should work as care taker Government and at the end of one year (preferably during Twelfth month) fresh polls may be ordered. This process may continue till majority Government is established. While forming Government following criteria should be applied.
1. All elected Members of Lower House shall be Palak Mantri (Guardian Ministers of their respective Constituency.
2. Government shall be headed by a member of the largest single party in a coalition.
3. No party or Independents shall have ministerial representation in the Cabinet more than fifteen percent of their elected strength in the house.
4. Independent Legislature can hold NO post in the Government sponsored organisation.
5. No post of Deputy shall be created for elected representatives.
6. There should be no necessity to have strength of ministers fifteen percent of the strength of the house. This should be treated as the highest limit and the actual strength should be less.
7. In a coalition Government all legislatures must support the Government. However they would be allowed to resign their membership and contest midterm polls. In case they get re-elected they shall be allowed to decide as to who they should support.
8. During life of the house if any member supporting ruling coalition decides to withdraw support shall resign his/her elected post of member of that house. He/she shall be allowed contest elections in the same or any other constituency as per individual choice.
9. If any Member changes his faith shall resign his/her membership and shall not contest any elections for a period of 6 years from date of resignation or date of change of faith whichever may be later.
10. No party shall issue whip on any bill. Members shall be allowed to vote as per their own visualisation.
11. If any bill in the house is not passed, it shall not be considered defeat of the Government. The Government shall continue to rule.

[janahitwadi]

1. In democracy majority is a key word. Philosophy is what is good or bad for the society must be decided based on the beliefs and thinking of majority of the people. There should be no argument against this. After all it is next to impossible to satisfy each and every person in a society at the same time. So the best solution is to satisfy more people and leave less people unsatisfied. Here the key word is 'number of people in the society'.
2. In election process right of voting is given to persons of eighteen years of age and more. So some population is not allowed to vote. Of course there is nothing wrong in this as persons below certain age have lesser decision capability. There is no fixed age of a person when he/she achieves this capability. However there has to be a demarcation so eighteen years is a good decision. At the time of casting of votes each and every person does not exercise his/her right. Usually only forty to sixty percent of the persons in Voters' list caste their votes. In exceptional cases it may be more than sixty percent or less than forty percent. For argument sake let's consider fifty percent of the voters cast their votes. Suppose a coalition or a single party gets majority seats in an election there support comes from maximum twenty five percent of voters or about twenty percent of the population. Therefore, majority finally means less than twenty percent of the people. Then how can we be sure it is majority opinion or aspiration?
3. On the other hand after election there is a confusion to decide on who should be allowed to form Government. This confusion leads to horse treading and unnecessary burden on President/Governor. In good faith whatever decision is taken by them is sure to be contested by some party or other. Such a situation is not welcome. We need to address this situation and find solution. And this solution must be found today if not at this moment.
4. Following suggestion need to be considered and finalised by the intelligentsia, Government and people. Whatever is found acceptable must be implemented ruthlessly.
1) Election commission on finalisation of results should make a summery as under:
a.List of party wise successful candidates.
b. Number and percentage of votes (one hundred percent is total voters in the list) for the party.
c. List of parties in different coalition.
d. Number and percentage of votes (one hundred percent is total voters in the list) for the coalition.
e. List of independent successful candidate with votes and percentage to total votes in the voters' list.
2) President/Governor should appoint an independent candidate who scored highest number of votes as a temporary speaker. In case no independent candidate is in the list of successful candidates, candidate from party which gained lowest number of posts shall be appointed.
3) President/Governor should ask temporary speaker to organise meeting of newly elected members of the house and give him time period of forty eight hours.
4) House in the first meeting must elect leader of the house.
5) Candidate elected in first phase now will compete with candidate from the single largest party/coalition in second phase.
6) Whoever wins in second phase shall form government. In case there is a tie, member of the single largest party/coalition shall be declared as successful.
7) Later, if any member stakes his/her claim for forming government must submit an application to the President/Governor supported by twenty five percent of members of the house and with self signed clear undertaking that he/she enjoys support of at least 50% of the members of the house. President/Governor should follow procedure as under to verify the claim and put up for vote in the house.
8) Invite the member and his supporters and make it clear to them that in case the claim fails all of them shall not only loose their membership but shall not be allowed to contest any election for a period of six years from the date of this warning or date of change of faith, whichever is later.
9) Member who has staked claim and his/her supporters shall give an undertaking to the President/Governor in writing stating every one of them has understood the rule and knowing the risk support is offered to the Member staking this claim.
10) If any of the supporters back out or refuge to sign undertaking the member staking claim shall be dismissed from his/her elected post and shall not contest elections for a period of six years from that date or date of change of faith, whichever is later.
11) If President/Governor is satisfied with the claim he/she shall summon the speaker and direct to make arrangement for voting.
12) All members shall be informed to attend meeting of the house and take part in voting. Those who do not take part in voting their membership shall automatically be forfeited.
13) If the claim is accepted by over 50% of the strength of the house President/Governor shall ask the current Government to resign and establish new Government.
14) On the other hand if the claim gets backing of 50% 0r less than 50% of the strength of the house the member staking claim and his/her supporters shall automatically forfeit their membership of the house and shall not contest any election for a period of six years form that date or date of change of faith, whichever is later.

[PVR]

Mr. Janahitwadi, both of us agree that 'the primary purpose of modification to democracy system should be to attract good people to join politics and make it difficult for selfish people to survive in it'. But we differ in our line of approaches in tackling this problem.

You have listed good thoughts/ideas which would facilitate good governance. My line of approach is to facilitate good people, who would be the source of good thoughts/ideas, to come to power.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, both of us agree that 'the primary purpose of modification to democracy system should be to attract good people to join politics and make it difficult for selfish people to survive in it'. But we differ in our line of approaches in tackling this problem.
My aim is the same, attract good people to politics. Whatever is needed e.g. financial provision, must be offered to achieve the aim. It is immaterial if group of good people under a party name are attracted or any good individual is attracted to politics why it should be a concern for any one? It also required that bad people are discouraged for contesting election. Every elected member would be minister and he/she can work and show competence. Whether elected as an independent member or party candidate all shall have opportunity to do some thing good.

You have listed good thoughts/ideas which would facilitate good governance. My line of approach is to facilitate good people, who would be the source of good thoughts/ideas, to come to power.
My thoughts and ideas are not just for governance. These are guide lines to encourage good competent persons and drive away selfish, incompetent, criminals from politics.

Now I am writing guidelines for Palak Mantri. In a day or 2 you would see them here.

I would request you to stick to the aim of refining politics. Please do not think that party less system is the only answer. There is a need to find answer which would be feasible. You are at liberty to decide on participation. I have nothing more to say.

[janahitwadi]

Appointment, Responsibilities and Powers of Guardian Ministers,
1) All elected members to the Lower house shall be the Palak Mantri (Guardian Minister) for their respective constituency. Where Member of Lower House is included in Cabinet of Ministers Member from Upper House shall be the Guardian Minister. They shall have following powers and responsibilities.
a) Palak Mantri shall be responsible for educating citizens about various government plans and schemes.
b) Palak Mantri shall obtain views of citizens on government plans and schemes and apprise the government about modifications desired by the citizens.
c) Palak Mantri shall obtain suggestions from citizens for new plans and schemes desired by the citizens, work out rough cost for the same with the help of government officials and prepare a priority list of such plans and schemes. These shall be submitted to the government and pursued till final decision is taken.
d) Palak Mantri shall be responsible for implementation of all plans and schemes as per the time schedule. Any delay and obstacles shall be brought to notice of the government for corrective action. If government fails to take action Palak Mantri shall bring this to notice of the cabinet and head of the ministry (Prime Minister / Chief Minister as the case may be)
e) Palak Mantri should be available to public at least for 4 days (32 hrs) in a month.
f) Palak Mantri shall be allowed to establish paid consultancy services for the benefit of citizen in their lawful earnings.
g) Palak Mantri shall be allowed to establish paid training centres for training of citizens for improving their skills for better job opportunities.
h) There shall be a method of judging performance of Palak Mantri annually.

Here care should be taken in fixing time period for every activity. It should be in hours and not in days and certainly not in weeks. Strict rules and firm execution with a view to avoid delay and corruption are necessary in the present situation. This shall prove the best solution to have stable Governments at Centre and state levels. These rules may be applied to ZP and other local bodies with suitable modification.

[Marc]

I have gone thru the thread. I fail to understand why PVR feels partyless government would work more effectively. It is a common knowledge that when a dead smells all vultures come together to share the booty. Whether partyless or party the result would be same unless the candidates are reformed.

Some of the suggestions are useful even in American contest.

[PVR]

I have gone thru the thread. I fail to understand why PVR feels partyless government would work more effectively. It is a common knowledge that when a dead smells all vultures come together to share the booty. Whether partyless or party the result would be same unless the candidates are reformed.
Some of the suggestions are useful even in American contest.
Marc, you are right that unless the candidates are reformed, it makes no difference whether it is partyless or party-based system.

The question is whether the system is going to favour the good people or the selfish to survive in it.

[janahitwadi]

Marc I agree as long as vultures are in politics and represent people no change could be expected. PVR if you go through the various articles in this thread you would find thought behind every suggestion is for achieving aim of turning good people to politics and discouraging selfish lot to refrain from politics. Wherever you find the suggestion is inadequate or against the aim, I will request you to reform, delete, place entirely new suggested provision etc. Once we reach the first step, we can debate for second step i.e. whether party less or party based.

[Marc]

This will teach candidates from party or independent a lesson. However, keeping them away for a long time may not work. Punishment be reduced to say 2 years.

[PVR]

Major issues need to be addressed are:

Corruption
Defection
Capability of a member
Stability
Performance
Party less system of politics
Basically it is inappropriate to include 'Partyless system' under the list of issues to be considered for modification.

My contention is that under the 'partyless system' the first 5 issues of concern would be automatically taken care of, since it would favour the 'good' to remain in power who would bring about the necessary changes.

Mr.Janahitwadi, you can make a summary of your suggestions and then include a note on whether a 'partyless system' would favour the attainment of the suggested modifications or not.

[janahitwadi]

I agree, all aims would be fulfilled but it will bring instability with it. To achieve party less system of politics first need is to refine politicians. They will choose either party less or party based system.

[janahitwadi]

Presently in local bodies i.e. Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations Party less system is in existence. However, politics in these bodies has no difference when compared to Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. Although the candidates file their nomination as Independents still work like Party Based politicians.

Mr. PVR could you study working of politicians in local bodies and put your views why the party less system works in same fashion as party based system?

[janahitwadi]

Responsibilities and Powers of Cabinet Ministers
Ministers in the Cabinet shall have responsibility of policy making and keeping a watch on the various government plans to make these successful. They shall be available in the capitol city for at least 15 working days (120 hours) in a month. During various sessions of the houses these ministers shall be available all the time. In case some of them need to leave capitol city it shall be with written permission from the Prime/Chief Minister as the case may be. While giving such permission Prime/Chief Minister shall undertake personally responsibility of the respective Ministry.

Would any one add to above/Modify?

[PVR]

Presently in local bodies i.e. Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations Party less system is in existence. However, politics in these bodies has no difference when compared to Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha. Although the candidates file their nomination as Independents still work like Party Based politicians.

Mr. PVR could you study working of politicians in local bodies and put your views why the party less system works in same fashion as party based system?
Mr. Janahitwadi, I wonder whether there is partyless system in local bodies anywhere in India. In the just concluded local body elections in Tamilnadu, every local body election from the Municipal Corporations down to the village panchayat level was contested on party basis. Of course 'independents' are also eligible to contest, just as in central or state elections.

When there is party-based system it permeates down to the bottom, naturally. Any imposition of the Partyless System at the grass roots level alone would be artificial and against the mind-set of the people.

[janahitwadi]

Mr. Janahitwadi, I wonder whether there is partyless system in local bodies anywhere in India. In the just concluded local body elections in Tamilnadu, every local body election from the Municipal Corporations down to the village panchayat level was contested on party basis. Of course 'independents' are also eligible to contest, just as in central or state elections.

When there is party-based system it permeates down to the bottom, naturally. Any imposition of the Partyless System at the grass roots level alone would be artificial and against the mind-set of the people.
That is exactly is my point. When candidates for these election don't contest election on party symbol why they want support from party? (Party symbols are not used by parties in these elections)

[janahitwadi]

I would pay for it. What should be name of the site? Any suggestions? Can you help in web page design?

[PVR]

That is exactly is my point. When candidates for these election don't contest election on party symbol why they want support from party? (Party symbols are not used by parties in these elections)
Mr. Janahitwadi, are you sure? In the last local body elections I mentioned, party symbols were used. All the alliance-partners were allotted constituencies at various levels (corporations, municipalities, village-panchayats etc.) as per pre-election agreement.

[PVR]

I would pay for it. What should be name of the site? Any suggestions? Can you help in web page design?
This is good news. As I mentioned previously, efforts to usher in partyless governance should have an international perspective.

I have been drafting a proposal for 'International Forum for Partyless Governance' for some time now. I will post it on 'Spread the Peace' forum. We can discuss it there.

[janahitwadi]

I fail to understand why did you select forum 'spread the peace' I thought you should post it under forum 'politics'

[janahitwadi]

Politicians must find out what most of the people need and also assess methods of implementation of various plans/programmes from the citizens. They should never think they are more intelligent than every citizen. They should only think they are the final authority. Their decisions shall be after taking in to consideration various suggestions. Broad outline of the procedure is given below. There is a need to get feed back on this before finalising the same.

1. Whatever plan or programme need to be implemented would be in 2 categories. Firstly day to day needs and secondly, long term perspective. The