Political reforms in
problems are common to all the democracies of the developing countries.
Political reforms – minimum educational qualification for ministers
need to be set and dynastic rule should be stopped – are absolutely
|Some political reforms are
absolutely needed in Indian democracy and in most of the democracies in
the Third World. Let’s examine the following two:
1) There is a long pursued demand that there should be a minimum
educational qualification requirement for any person who wants to
contest an assembly or parliamentary election. The demand is good, but
counter argument is that if we Indians are voting for and electing an
illiterate person, how can one bar that person in a democracy?
Also, India is a country of villages, where millions of illiterates
live. However, what about ministers? Ministers are office-bearers, who
run offices. Can they run their offices if they don’t have even bare
minimum qualification? Can a person be allowed to do a surgery, if
he/she does not have minimum required medical qualifications? How can
we hand-over a ministry in the hands of an illiterate person when each
ministry manages millions and billions of rupees along with a very
large human resources?
An illiterate person can be a representative in India, but he/she
absolutely does not qualify to be a minister because he/she does not
have the bare minimum required skills. At least graduation degree
should be made a compulsory requirement in order to be a minister in a
state or in the central government.
2) The second biggest problem of Indian democracy and of most of the
democracies in the Third World is the dynastic rule. All over the
world, democracy has been accepted after rejecting imperialism and the
Rejection of the dynastic rule is in the ethos of the democracy. We
must make sure that in a democracy, democratic ethos do not get
overruled and hijacked by dynastic rules. For this, we will have to
provide some safeguards to a democracy. A person should not be allowed
to head the central government for more than two times as the rule in
USA. A close relative of the most influential person of any registered
political party should not be allowed to inherit the party for, let’s
say, 10-20 years immediately after the tenure of the influential person.
All registered political parties in a democracy commit to follow the
democratic traditions within the party. Then how can a political party
be a privately owned party? They must have some persons within the
party capable of leading the party. In order to maintain the democratic
ethos within the political parties, there must be a waiting period for
the biological heir to inherit the party leadership, otherwise parties
become just dynasties.
In a democracy, political parties are to serve the nation, not a
family. In USA and other developed western countries, this moratorium
period does not exist, just because their democracies are now matured
enough and their electorate are now enlightened enough and there is no
existence of the problem of dynasties in their democracies.
These two reforms are revolutionary in nature, capable enough of
solving many decade old grievances and absolutely necessary in order to
transform our pseudo democracies into the real democracies.
Published in merinews.com: http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=133293