Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Functional Democracy

Democracy , A Government of the people, for the people by the people was claimed the Best amongst the worst possibilities of governance according to Abraham Lincoln.

As there can never be anything better than democracy as a governance.. but still democracy or the way see it is flawed

Democracy basicaly of 3 types, Presidential Democracy or what the USA follow, Parliamentary , That we indians try to follow..
And a third typeFunctional Democracy.. which is the theoretical third type of Democracy.

While there is again two variants of both Presidential and Parliamentary democracy , i.e Multi Party system and Bi-party system, Functional democracy needs a Multi functional society.

If i go into the details of the pros and cons of either a Presidential bi-party or presidential multi party, or parliamentary Bi partyor Parliaentary Multi-party..it would take me at leat 10 lecture series to complete..but putting it simple .. they all fall short of expectations in differen aspects.. some in the case of options the other in stability. some on in logic...

the most logical form of democracy hence becomes Functional Democracy..
What is Functional Democracy,
Its a democracy without constituencies or political parties.
the society is devided into multiple functions
or feilds of work...Like the feild of Lawyers, Medical Practitioners, Armed forces, Laboureres, Economists, House wives, Farmers... they choose the their representatives to the parliament.. and the parliament then chooses a governmentaccording to the representation, not by virtue of votes but by merit.. but at the same time the leader of each function automaticaly gets their portfolio..
like the elected armed force representative will get the defence portfolio..and economist will get finance
The what i ask and seek comments from the readers is ... is it feasible to have Democracy in India.. and my next few blogs will be on the same topic after getting your suggestions

4 comments:

avimanyu said...

Well u have made a comment which needs careful consideration. We had teachers, Doctors rtepresenting r coubntry previously. But Bidhan Chandar did not represent Doctors or Manmohan did not represent only teachers. A country has sometimes different requirements that often do not run parallel to job respoinsibilities of professionals. Creative professionals often are bad in administration. And political job is a function of both wits and administration. So we can actually destrt a great doctor and create an inneffective politoical leader. For instance if AMartya Sen or John Nash runs the office they will never be able to comply with the requirements of the dicrty politics and wil will miss upon theories that they could have created.

a big yawn said...

but the question is are politicians good administrators.. they are not..but are they intellectual.. most of them no

Anonymous said...

as you have mentioned in your blog, functional democracy is just a theoretical possibility. it does not exist in the real world, the same way as perfect competition in economics.

the big problem which i see is classifying different sectors and assigning functions accordingly. where does an illiterate fall in a functional democracy, and you know you certainly cant ignore their numbers, especially in a country like ours. also define me who is an economist ????

as avimanyu says, time has shown, that a good professional may not necessarily be a good administrator. hence, for me functional democracy is just a theory. rather start a debate on bi-party vs multi party democracy.

sandeep biswal.

iHatEtiTo said...

i will go with avi and bisu on this. functional democracy is a theory, that for obvious reasons can not be put into practice, and i wont use valuable memory space to reiterate what the two of them have already stated.
however, going close, and varying a little, if we divide the society like you said in functional democracy and then get these people to chose their leaders, like in functional democracy, not within themselves but from another group called politicians, will that make a difference? these politicians will then handle their respective portfolios, and chose their secretaries and executives from the group of executives, who would be so deemed after qualifying examinations like IAS. for that matter, no politician will be elected, but selected, in the similar way the administrators are. there could be an Indian Political Service examination and people who clear them will be allowed to take part in the political activities. there will be no opposition, and all the politicians, along with their executives will be one team and perform as a team. they will be rated on a five yearly basis and based on their performance they would either continue with their current portfolio, given additional responsibilities or stripped off being a politicians or executives. once stripped they cannot join politics/IAS again.
all these (recruiting, rating and deciding on their fate) will be done by a statutory body selected by the head of the state. this body will have as members experienced politicians, executives, judges, and retired members of each functional group with vast functional experience in their fields. how does it sound?
and yeah, how is the head of the state elected? by vote within the statutory body!