All pieces on this site are syndicated. You can purchase the right to use them by contacting us using the form in the Purchase A Piece page of this site.

Using any piece from this site in part or whole without purchasing the use right is a legal offense.

Politics: Hear The Voters | Indian “Democracy” – Part 2



The Indian Voter is largely mute under the current system of formation of the government. Is there no option then for the voter to do anything except feel impotent outrage and express vitriolic anger to friends, acquaintances, colleagues, family and social media? Actually there is a solution. It requires a leap in the way the government is formed after the drama of the Great Indian Election. 

As things stand now, the party with the largest number of seats (including those that they have got by themselves as well as those that they have bought by offering sops, spots, ministries or money) is invited to form the government. This is the second part of Sharad Pawar’s statement (“BJP will be the largest Party but NDA will not get enough seats” – this is paraphrased but the gist is the same as Pawar’s statement).  So what happens is that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing and one Party make the requisite number of seats to form the government.

Consider the Elections as a humungous interview. Every citizen is on the interview panel. Each candidate is evaluated by their employers (who, in a democracy are the citizens of the country).  Every constituency has multiple candidates vying for the post of MP (MLA or even Corporater). The voters of each constituency are analysing the candidates in their constituency. Why only constituency, the interviews, evaluation, analysis is happening at Centre level. The voters within each centre created for casting the vote are analysing the candidates’ worth in representing them. After the evaluation of the candidates, the employer (voter) has made choices – there is one candidate with the highest number of votes, there is a second, third and so on. The assumption is that the voter has selected the candidate they feel is the most appropriate for the role of representing them.  This is Voter Speak. This is the decision that has to be heard.

Now instead of waiting for one Party to make the number (272), what if the President invited all the elected members to form the government. There are a total of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha. After the votes are cast and counted, there will be 543 elected candidates. All these elected candidates, irrespective of the Party they belong to, should have the responsibility of forming and running the government together. The Party with the majority votes can nominate the Prime Minister, but all other portfolios should be distributed only within the candidates in whom the populace has reposed their faith.

If this model is introduced, it will benefit the country in innumerable ways.

First: It will end power concentration in Parties. If there is no “ruling” Party, the unbridled arrogance and power resting in the hands of a few will end. 

Second: It will cut down and control corruption; if not eradicate it totally. No horse trading; money for alliances or shield of Party power would mean that the most deserving person will get the job (portfolio).

Third: It will end the biggest drain of the taxpayer and common man – there will be no more scams. In the last decade India has been riddled with scams of such vast sums that most people cannot even “see” the number in their heads. If the government has members from all Parties, no single person will have the audacity to commit large-scale scams since all their colleagues will be watching them and making them answerable.

Fourth: The elected members will do a better job in taking care of their constituencies. In this model, getting re-elected would depend solely on merit and performance. Under the current model, even if a person had failed dramatically, their chance of getting power is high if the Party they are in assumes power.  In the proposed model, only candidates who have performed well will get an extension by their employers (voters).  Accountability, transparency and ownership will all automatically come into play for the 5 yearly appraisals (read: elections).

Fifth: A government so formed cannot renege from the duties and responsibilities entrusted in it by the citizens of the country. If the State government in Delhi had been formed using this model, today there would still be a functioning government in the State instead of it being left to Governor’s rule after Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) threw a tantrum and resigned. They failed their voters immeasurably. This proposed model would ensure that there is no repeat of such a situation at any level.

So by the simple expedient of changing the way the government is formed, India could change its fortunes; its present and its future.

Sujata Garimella