Do we really need politicians and political parties for democracy in India?

A lot is said about the gross corruption of politicians in india. It will be agreed by most people that most politicians in india today come to politics just for power and/or money, rather than any particular ideology. A large section of common people are angry with politicians, and even look upon them as enemies of the country. Others argue that it is unfair to blame the politicians alone for the rampant corruption in the country, the common people also have played a role in it.

Recently, there were elections in four states of india-tamilnadu,kerala,west bengal and assam. While the congress held on to power in assam and narrowly won in kerala, in West Bengal the TMC-Congress combine routed the 34-yr Left Front regime, and in TN AIADMK took the incumbant DMK to the cleaners. While I am not in a position to comment about the first two results, it is the other two which seem somewhat thought-provoking to me. When the people of WB and TN voted, did they vote for TMC/AIADMK or against CPM/DMK respectively? In WB, I understand that people were fed up with the arrogant and undemocratic rule of the CPM-led front for 34 long years, and wanted a change. I doubt they consider Mamata to be a good administrator, but they voted her because she was the main anti-Left campaigner for many many years. But in TN, Jaya and Karuna come to power in alternate terms. Both of them have had lots of corruption charges against them. This time, top DMK leaders like Kanimozhi and A. Raja were accused of corruption in the 2G spectrum case. Because of this, there was an anti-DMK wave and Jaya came to power. But she herself is no better, and had lost earlier for the same reason-corruption!! Then did the people really vote her because she was a better alternative? Or is it because she was the only alternative??

This actually raises a fundamental question- are there enough alternative political forces in India? A large section of the people are disillusioned with the current political system. While there can be no doubt that a multi-party/multi-view parliamentary democracy is the best form of government seen so far, is it really working meaningfully in india? If a disillusioned voter is to be  brought back to a polling booth, (s)he should have enough options to choose from. In practice, in every election there are two main camps, and parties/leaders switch frequently from one camp to another. In WB, TMC once goes with BJP, once with congress. In TN, AIADMK and DMK keep switching between NDA and UPA. In elections, the chief ministerial/prime ministerial candidates remain mostly the same year after year. Jaya had earlier been defeated for her corruption, but she again contests. Why should people at all be motivated to vote?

The parliamentarians/MLAs are supposed to be representatives of people. But in the current system, once they are elected, they work independant of the people for the rest of the term. There is no system of an elected member getting feedback/suggestions from the electorate, or being replaced for failure to deliver. Then, are they true representatives of people? And actually, is there at all any need for representatives of people? Is there at all a need for the concept of political parties and politicians in india? Cannot a parliamentary system function without them?

The main function of the parliament is to discuss policies of governance, and once decided, order the concerned departments to implement these policies. The discussion is suppossed to happen among the parliamentarians- the so-called representatives of the people. However, instead of having representatives, is it not possible to directly take the opinions of the countrymen on issues? With the rapid development of the Internet and social networks, it should not be impossible to obtain the viewpoints of a substantial number of people. Indeed good discussions on various matters of national interest happen on online communities in orkut or facebook. Of course, involving too many people will tend to cause confusion. So we will need a dedicated group of people to moderate the discussion, and identify the majority view. This group of people should be professionals.....just like there are IFS,IAS,IPS,IRS etc, we can have an Indian Parliamentary Service-whose job will be to conduct such discussions among the people. Any common person, irrespective of his/her social status should be able to raise a discussion thread or participate in a discussion. The service should have its own boards for management, promotions etc. And the different people will have their own views-some can be liberal, some conservative etc. Thus we will have a multi-view parliamentary democracy without a political class. Isn't it possible??