Patronage democracy, civil society and elected government

As an Indian, I have been amazed at the recent scams involving billions of dollars in what is still a developing country. I also found a interesting detail giving out information about how India isn't actually poor but rich. The India that the article talks about is the government (GDP) and not the people (PPP). So who is the government in a democracy if it is not by, for and of the people? Politicians. Ever since the birth of the concept of a republic, things haven't changed much. I sure agree that a republic is better than an absolute monarchy. The concept of a constitutional monarchy isn't too different from a republic in terms of governance to talk about. The thing that separates a republic from a kingdom is the presence of a council of people's representatives that somehow are better in making decisions than one person, the monarch. But what happens when the representatives are not taking proper decisions? What if they do not present a clear choice? What if the choices they provide are not really solutions and not the one that people really want?

I want to recollect two examples, one in India and one in the US. In India, there is the center-left Indian National Congress and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party. How different are they in terms of policy towards terrorists, Pakistan, industrialization and corporations? Honestly, there are some minute details that are different and most of these differences are seeming to be determined by what is called 'coalition-dharma' which is often called upon by the most-honest corruption-free integral prime minister India has had, to answer questions of inefficiency, clogged-policy making at the parliament. Is this because of the pressures of regional parties that try to cater to a smaller region and make sure that their voices are heard? What is the difference between the parties in terms of fight against corruption, improvements in government, proper spending and audit of tax payer money? Almost nothing that I can note - apart from the obvious commissions set by successive governments to investigate the corruption of the previous government and continue to follow the interesting ideas set by previous politicians to increase kickbacks for themselves. There just isn't a big difference between them for me to choose one over the other. But of course, like the wise people of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, we could alternate between them so that one group will not get more time to 'get-settled' and empty the treasury on its own.

In the US, there is a clear difference in terms of domestic and fiscal policy between the two main parties - the left-leaning, big-government, more-tax democrats and the opposite right-wing republicans. Again, no single party has held on to power for a long time in order to get the country on to a single type of policy. However, I see the once-in-two-years form of elections (congress and presidential), sort of limiting the administration's ability to have a clear mandate. By the time the new president starts implementing major reforms, the two years are up and invariably loses congress support as the next party gains majority. And of course, they have to say no to almost all that he has done and clean the slate.

So, we either have parties that aren't that different and provide no choice, or there are parties that hardly want to continue good things of the other party and delay reforms. In either case, things that should happen in a country do not happen and leads to undergrowth and stagnation. What would be a way out? Civil society - a collection of non-politicians that are interested in a set of aspects of economy, polity demonstrating lobbying, garnering public support to make sure certain things happen in the country? Does this sense of shadow government actually work? I for one, find the idea that a group of individuals holding the government and the public hostage by conducting 'fast-unto-death' protests a bit backward. It is quite different from the non-violent civil-disobedience sort of thing that Gandhi stood for. There need to be more practical approaches that actually gain results, rather than threaten, subvert and coerce certain policies with an emotionally charged public support based on certain ideologies.

These thoughts lead me to believe that a higher degree of direct democracy should be entertained. In the past, lack of technology to easily understand people's wants, lesser understanding of society and world affairs, and the absence of an independent judiciary and media might have prevented the spread of direct democracy. This form of purest democracy which involves making decisions directly by the people through referendums is only seen in very small countries like Switzerland. I believe that with current technology, biometrics and instant connectivity, referendums can be easily conducted. Also, the spread of independent judiciary, under the watchful eye of the ubiquitous media, can keep a check on the fundamental problem in direct democracy - a majority enforcing a 'wrong' decision on the minority. This problem exists to a lesser degree in a representative democracy, but with the absence of choice, it is almost the same as that in a direct one.

Who would not want such a direct/patronage democracy? Maybe an indecisive, lazy minority who want the others to take decisions for them, sit on their couch and do nothing. But they are served anyway in even an autocratic government. And of course, corrupt politicians who need to be rid off society. I'd like to be asked if I want my country to attack another state, ask two states in a country if they are OK to share water, build a $500m bridge to nowhere, etc.