We are taught from young age that ‘democracy is the best form of government”Don’t think there is anything better’ etc. But if we think different we can come across better forms of government than the present form.Democracy is a form of government created by people and is subject to defects.In companies we have good business models,software models etc. But after trial run we realize there are some defects and go back and improve upon them.Also some radical innovative models are sometimes even better.Same thing goes with the forms of government.
Consider this form of government.Instead of having bulky political parties why not have party leaders stand as candidates for the post of Prime Minister/President.Most of the times it is the party leader who simply calls the shots.The people can directly vote for them.Better still we could invite applications for this post from the citizens.Based on screening them for proven leadership track record,no criminal cases etc.We could shortlist the top 5 or 10 most eligible candidates.People can select the candidate who is most popular/likable for 5 years.He could then select experts from different sectors as ministers.Like Narayan Murthy as IT minister,Ratan Tata as steel minister etc and other sector specific leaders.I don’t mean businessmen with vested interests,but any sector specific expert.He could hand pick distinguished people from different sectors as expert advisory group who could debate/discuss proposed laws.He can hand pick worthy local people for mayor/panchayats position in cities/villages who should interact directly with people and pass immediate orders to solve their problems.He should have a citizens forum where people directly give ideas to the Prime Minister.A judiciary to oversee the constitutional validity of laws passed,Election Commission,Constitution will still be there.A public referendum can be taken out when public is passionate about something.
There will be no bulky Parliament in this form of government.Parliament consists of people who are not experts in every field.Let us assume in an ideal case all the parliamentarians are PHDs,great character.One might be a PHD in Physics other in History.Yet when a mining bill comes both don’t know much about it.Yes they will ask experts.But then why don’t you directly ask the experts?Form a team of sector specific experts and let them debate/discuss the bill.The best logically sound argument will be accepted by the Prime Minister.
Same problems go with direct democracy where people themselves directly vote for the bills.Not all are experts in every field and do not have much time to look into bills.Public referendum on some issues takes care of simmering discontent.
This model allows sufficient decentralisation.Local Mayors know the local problems and can directly act on it without taking permission from the Prime Minister.Once in a few months the Prime Minister(PM) can be appraised of the projects.If direct communication to th PM is tough,another hierarchical line of executives can be added.It is easier to select good people if the model is lean.Absolute majority with a single party coming to power is considered desirable.This model will give the same amount of powers to the elected PM minus party politics.
The most popular people are not the most worthy candidates.If a movie star stands in the election his dialogues will win votes hands down.But another person,a great economist who has good ideas to cut inflation will be a boring fellow.Yes you can rerate them after 5 years.But people don’t know if he has done marginally good or moderately good.How do they benchmark and against whom?People can be satisfied by marginally good when the person could have done much better.Then there is the usual problems of voting on the basis of caste,religion,community etc,not essentially the best.In the above form,the best possible candidates selected after screening can do better.
This form of government will cut flab,be efficient and agile.It will eliminate unworthy but popular people from getting elected.Also the people debating will be experts in their field.There is greater likelihood of better decisions.As it is today the party leaders only call the shots.Then why not have worthy leaders directly elected by the people.These leaders will keep a balance between expert opinion,constitutional provisions and public opinion.Today contesting elections is meant only for the super rich.This is the main reason why parties think corruption is necessary evil. Minimal elections will reduce this money requirement.The democratic freedom for the people still exists.And why saddle the people with too many elections?
Do you see some issues?Let’s discuss,have a trial run and create a better model.What’s your take? Is this a better form of democracy, or a new form(expertocracy?)