Friday, March 16, 2007
Q#6: Can we device a practical mechanism to usher in Partyless Governance?
Ans: It is possible. The following link elaborates on this possibility - http://www.forum-politics.com/showthread.php?t=4712
The following blog elaborates a simpler approach, which would pave the way to the same goal: http://worldtruedemocracyplatform.blogspot.com
Friday, December 15, 2006
Q#5: Whether it is Partyless or Party-based system, it all depends on the individual elected member, isn't it?
Ans: You are right. Unless individuals 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, the broad-minded or the narrow-minded, the humane or the hard-hearted to survive in it.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Q#4: Assuming that collective will power has been generated, what is the practical way to usher in the partyless system?
Ans: 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 or to the political party that supports the concept of 'partyless governance' in principle, in the best interests of everyone. 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 or the candidate from the political party supporting 'partyless governance' (nearly independent) 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 (or nearly 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 (except those parties that support partyless governance in principle) 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 or nearly 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.
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 (or nearly 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 (except those parties that support partyless governance in principle) 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 or nearly 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.
Q#3: From party-based system how do we bring about transformation to a partyless system? The political parties will not accept this.
Ans: It is true 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.
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.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Q#2: Even if all the members are independents, isn't it human nature to form groups going on to become parties opposing one another?
Ans: That's right. 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.
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.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Q#1: In a house of independents won't each member be a law unto himself?
Ans: 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, is understandable. Let us visualize 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.
Musings on Partyless Democracy:
http://musingsonpartylessdemocracy.blogspot.com
__________________
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.
Musings on Partyless Democracy:
http://musingsonpartylessdemocracy.blogspot.com
__________________
