Partyless democracy

Witnessing the way party politics work not just in India, but across democracies around the world makes me consider if there's any alternative to Representative Democracy. Abraham Lincoln said, "democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people." Is this true anymore? By voting/selecting a candidate and asking them to be your representative actually work? This is just giving voter a 'power' to select a candidate for a certain period of time. By the vote, the 'power' is transferred from citizen to the representative and disconnecting the citizen from the remaining aspects of exercising democratic functions. Moreover, the elections are seen just as an event focused on swing states, swing candidates, and also swing voters. So, is there an alternative?

One alternative is partyless democracy. I guess this is something envisioned by our constitution writers as there's no mention of political party in our constitution. The concept is introduced by a law i.e.  Representation of the People Act 1951, which was the amended version of Representation of People Act 1950. Maybe our founding parents were envisioning something beyond party politics or they have already considered the fallacies of party politics. Either way, party politics has become almost a menace to the foundation of democracy itself. This is equally true whether it's presidential or parliamentary system of governance. The election in the USA is just focused on 10 to 15 odd swing states and the election in India is an extravaganza in itself. 

"Growth of totalitarianism, rise of bureaucracy, strengthening of the state apparatus, loss of civil and political liberties, curtailment of moral, intellectual and cultural values were the developments that disturbed Roy." This was mentioned by M N Roy even before India got independence. And, this is very true in the current context across the world. So, what can be done? Something has to change to correct various things, whether it is defection of MPs/MLAs, constant check on the MLAs/MPs who are likely to swing, proving confidence in assembly, spending money, electoral bonds (almost no checks), etc. I wonder if the Chief Minister is even able to govern for a single day without worrying about the stability of the government. 

As Albert Einstein said "we can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." So, let's not try to solve the problem as such. How about rethink the whole process, unlearn what's already present and get a bit revolutionary? What about disbanding the political parties altogether? No more political parties. Instead you vote for ideas. 

1. No more political parties. People vote for candidates and the prominence for a candidate increases without the political party. Each candidate has to fight and win elections on his own qualities and ideas. Maybe this will discourage the criminalization of politics and bring more candidates with genuine interest towards governance. This also raises the question whether a person who's a criminal can be a politician and also govern us at the same time. 

2. Currently, we are in the third stage, where the Parliamentary government changed to Cabinet government and finally towards Prime Ministerial government. Instead, the elected candidates select a person to be chief among them i.e. Chief Minister or Prime Minister. This is totally in line with the idea of primus inter pares (first among equals), the idea consistent with our constitution. If there's no consensus, or even if there's a consensus, a simple way can be adopted. Single transferable vote process (something which Rajya Sabha MPs are already aware of) can be adopted to select various ministries for portfolios. As there's true primus inter pares, the power is decentralized with various people. The vote of no-confidence becomes a question on the ideas and laws, but not on the party. And, if the motion moves ahead, they can always select a new leader. This definitely removes the extraordinary powers which the Prime Minister commands, but gives teeth to the ministers who are equally voted by people.

3. No more whip in a party. If a bill comes up (now it can be introduced by any candidate, irrespective of being in power or not), the next part is candidates vote according to their true preference and idea than the party pressure. This reminds me of the way Somnath Chatterjee, the Lok Sabha speaker during UPA 1 term in 2004-09 was expelled from the party as he voted against the party's interest during 2008 no-confidence motion. Now, you are voting for an idea. And ideas can go beyond party lines. Consider the example where some members of opposition supported the abrogation of Article 370 going against the party lines. As representatives are not bound by whip, they are more accommodative of their constituency's interests enriching true democracy.

5. Non-partisan role of the speaker without any bias, similar to the system of governance in the UK. It'd be prudent for the speaker to assume the role by being totally non-partisan to conduct the affairs smoothly and vote as a tie-breaker. It enriches the role of the speaker as a true arbitrator in the affairs of the representatives.

6. Electoral bonds and election spending. There's no more a political party which can receive unlimited donations. There's already a limit on the spending of a candidate, which has to be continued. So, where does the candidate get money from? They don't have to. This levels the field to even candidates who don't have money. One positive side is corporations can't donate and influence something. Business is business. Politics is Politics. They are not mixed anymore. 

7. True oneness and bonding. We are not concentrating on the ideology anymore. It's ideas. Ideas matter. Policies which reflect the hour of the need matter. The media questions the ideas, universities/think tanks contribute research and people actually receive the benefit from this whole process.

8. Reduction of governor's subjectivity and arbitrariness as originally thought. The position of the Governor and President will be as they actually intended to be according to the constitution. To keep the government in continuance when there's lack of consensus. To concentrate on specially administrative zones. To focus on extremely backward areas and autonomous regions.

9. Empowering the MPs/MLAs - they are more empowered and have the capacity to question more. If they are not adequately questioning, obviously the people will see the way their representative is letting them down. Or, maybe they will witness other MLAs/MPs are doing more to their own constituencies. So, they'd fight to get more resources for their people. And, they take it seriously as their job too instead of current dismal attendance. They are not just mere numbers to maintain the government. They are people representing ideas of their constituencies. No more 'Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram.'

10. Does this slow down the governance? Not necessarily. If the Supreme Court awakes at midnight to pass orders, can't government do that if required? If emergency work is required, especially due to unforseen circumstances like natural disasters or pandemics, they can convene special session and do it.

11. Opposition? What about it? Opposition no more exists as a formal designation. Each MP/MLA is a member of opposing and ruling government at the same time. The people have elected a representative to not just see their representative sit in opposition and show dissent. This gives the representative to bring out the plight of the people of their constituency irrespective of the person who leads them as there is no party system anymore. Will this make the government less accountable? On the contrary, it increases the accountability as any MP/MLA can question any other MP/MLA. Now, over here, the idea is focused. The personality of the MP/MLA will start to diminish soon and his ideas takes the prominence.

12. Who benefits/loses of this?

Beneficiaries - people, honest politicians, efficient bureaucrats

Losers - corporations, corrupt politicians, inefficient bureaucrats

Haven't people thought of this before? This is definitely not a novel idea. But, why wasn't this even considered? Firstly, people like the current policy. More than anyone, politicians want to maintain the status quo. Whats required is to change this? Pure political will. Nothing more than that. 

Can still these politicians thwart ways, make a confederacy, conspire, use illicit ways, etc. after the concept of party is removed? Yes, they can always do it. Even in the current party politics system, there are politicians and politics which goes beyond the idea of a party. An idea is as good as people who believe and implement it.

P.S. 

18-11-2020-Maybe a few more edits on a later date. Posted as it came to my mind right now.

27-11-2020-More edits are required. Have to think of the way this can be actually implemented and what's required to do it. Advantages and disadvantages should be considered, and some more examples are required for next edit.