Q&A on Partyless Governance

Flaw #1: The people elect their representatives by casting their votes on a symbol, usually that of a political party. This is based on two assumptions viz. political parties are inevitable in a Democracy and that the common people/illiterates need a symbol to facilitate their voting. The second assumption presumes that the common people cannot judge the candidates on their own, thus underestimating the average voter's wisdom.

Flaw #2: The political parties have thrived on this dependency of Democracy on them and have also found the method of voting on a symbol, convenient to woo the voters and develop 'vote-banks'. Vote banks are largely responsible for perpetuating the polarization of the society on caste, class, communal and racial lines.

Flaw #3: The voter is not forced to individually evaluate the candidate he or she is going to vote for. Following the herd and voting on a symbol without knowing the candidate has become the norm. This enables election campaigns based on glam and rhetoric to become all powerful.

Flaw #4: The candidates need not rely on their individual merits for getting votes. There is always the party symbol and the party leaders to bank upon at the time of elections.

Flaw #5: Political success is determined by skills of dubious nature like capacity for background manipulations. Honesty and true merit do not make much electoral sense in a party-based political system. 

Flaw #6: The stability of the government depends on the ruling party/alliance holding together its members. Dissent based on rational argument is discouraged. Issuing a whip to the members at the time of voting in the elected house is the most blatant evidence for this.

Flaw #7: The elected representative need not apply himself to solving the problems of the people of his constituency to retain their goodwill; of more importance is whether he is able to please the superiors in the party and be in tune with the party-line of thinking.

Every one of these flaws is rectified in a party-less system of governance.

Party-less governance (or political system) implies that within the elected house, the people’s representatives are independents not bound by the diktat of the political party which sponsored them. A constitutional amendment can enforce this. This is not inconceivable since every representative belongs to a religion, but within the elected house religions have no role in the political process (of secular nations).

Once the elected house meets for the first time, the speaker is elected and then the leader of the house, who will be the prime minister/chief minister. The leader, who is expected to be non-partisan, then chooses the members of the cabinet and council of ministers from any of the members and forms the government. The individual representative’s past performance and reputation will matter at every level. There will not be any other consideration. 

Bills can be passed and decisions taken based on the merit of the case. Nobody needs to please anyone else. Outside the house, the representatives may have political affiliation but within the elected house political parties will have no role. In case the PM/CM or a minister does not fulfil the expectation of the house and behaves in a partisan manner, a mechanism can be worked out to replace him. 

Thus every representative of the people will be focused on the needs of his/her constituency and would strive to fulfil them by bringing it to the notice of the elected house. He need not please any party forum to take up the matters pertaining to his constituency. Political parties can provide the forum to bring people’s issues to focus. They can advice the elected representatives affiliated to them, but it will not be binding on the representative. 

In such a setup independent candidates can contest election without any political backing. All that matters is the goodwill of the people. The true merit of the candidate will matter and not his affiliation to a political party. A mechanism to recall the elected representative by the people of that constituency can be evolved if his performance is not satisfactory. Elections will be simple matter-of-fact affairs. Wasteful expenditure to impress the electorate by the political parties will be curbed.

Thus a party-less political system can flourish and make democracy more meaningful and successful. It has taken several centuries for people to start thinking independent of religion. Similarly it will take time for people to think independent of political parties. It is human nature to identify oneself with a group or way of thinking. But that need not stop them from rising above such considerations within the elected house.

Ans: From a Party-based to a Party-less system is a giant leap.
We can design a Web Platform that goes to the basics of good governance, which is allowing the individual voter to express himself in matters of governance.
Such a platform should allow all kinds of people - from the party-based to the independent-minded. It should be practically useful in day to day affairs.
If the independent voters show sufficient interest then they should have the opportunity to contest elections independently on the basis of popular support.

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 allow the good, the broad-minded and the humane people to survive in it.

Ans: It is simple and straight forward. In all ensuing local, state or central elections, believing in the desirability of ushering in partyless system, every voter 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. Assuming that the concept becomes 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 the concept of 'partyless governance' 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 party-based but supporting the cause of 'partyless governance') 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.

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, when 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.

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; any narrow-minded work would be counter-productive. The overall dynamics of the house counters the negative aspects 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 an independent line without fear of any negative consequences since they can build their individual reputation through well-considered actions. 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 members of the house as well as the public/voters to whom they will be accountable.

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 of the house, the public and especially 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 familiar among other members of the house 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 unethically 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/her 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. Negative tactics 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 thus stands dismissed on close scrutiny.
__________________