On Elections & Governance..

This is a proposal to address the political thriller that recently unfolded in New Delhi.

On the one hand we have the desire to give the Power to voters but that same power paralyses governance when the voters cannot make up their mind, thus giving a hung (confused?) mandate. It's clear that some compromise is needed when voters give a mixed mandate, and the conflicting goals are:

1. Stable government at center with enough power to drive an agenda without having to bend backwards for support

2. Allowing new entrants into the arena to prevent lethargy - so this eliminates the "winner takes all" approach

3. Protecting localised interests (ensuring the needs of the constituency are fulfilled)

4. Avoiding any additional cost burden on voters - so this eliminates the option of having re-elections

Two additional long-term goals should also be

A: Preventing the incessant spawning of new political parties each time someone gets caught taking a bribe or doesn't get a cabinet berth or gets rebuked by the party president.

B: Avoiding jumbo-coalitions - these are the bane of all governance. Coalitions are merely compromises. The best analogy for a coalition government is Treading Water. You spend a lot of energy, you get tired, you go NOWHERE.

Given that we have multiple conflicting goals, one has to prioritize. Are localised interests more important than a stable powerful government? No. Is allowing a newcomer more important than a stable powerful government? No. So clearly the first goal is the most important and the others must be compromised if the need be.

First it's important to understand that an elected representative (MLA/MP) has two duties:
A) Work in the constituency and
B) Vote on legislation on behalf of the constituency.

An MLA/MP from the party with less seats may be doing good work for the constituency but at the same time, said MLA/MP can (and will, as we have seen) paralyze legislation by making quid-pro-quo demands.

In such cases one needs to separate the two duties- basically such MLAs belonging to parties with less than 15% vote share should NOT be allowed to vote on any legislation in the assembly (including confidence vote). This will automatically give the single largest party a simple majority.

This allows the MLAs/MPs from small parties (and independents) to still do work for their constituency and also prevents them from paralysing the agenda of the government.

Over time, if the ruling party does not turn out to be good, they will be thrown out. Similarly, if the small party proves its work they will be given more votes in the next election.

With the above approach,
1. BJP would have been obligated to form the government in New Delhi (no more crying sour grapes).
2. INC would be relegated to the position of a "small party" and would have to focus on grassroots level work without paralyzing the government.
3. AAP would be in opposition and people would get to see BJP in action, while also getting a chance to see how well AAP could deliver in their constituencies. 

To those who say the "small parties" will be ignored in this approach, I ask, if they really were so important, why didn't they get more votes? Secondly, voting inherently implies "Majority wins, Majority decides". BJP and INC are antipodes, politically speaking. When INC is voted in power, it inherently means that those who voted for BJP will not get the reforms they wanted, and vice versa. The same logic should apply in the above case, so that at least the state and nation are not held hostage to the whims and fancies of some party with a handful of MLAs / MPs.

Its a shame that while so much is being said about the corruption and dirt in politics, no one is really trying to fix the root cause - the election process.