There is a difference in ancient Indian system and western system of democracy. In Indian system the king had basic responsibility of security of citizens. Indians of every village had their own government and was known as “Panchayat”. Almost all actions were controlled by the Panchayat. King had been the appellant authority. Decision of the king had been final verdict and had to be implemented. With change in circumstances this system developed certain disadvantages. Later Indians were ruled by western power. Initially Indians were educated in England. This might be the reason why India adopted western system of democracy instead of modifying ancient system of Panchayat. Later India did this but failed to modify older system to suit changes needed at present. Basic advantages of Panchayat are distribution of powers right down to village level and no opposition party. Panchayat is required to find answer for every issue a person in a village comes across. This reduces responsibility and efforts of king i.e. at central level.
Fundamental aim of any governing system is to ensure security, welfare and smooth functioning of society. This needs some funds. Members of the society are required to pay for the expenses. As the responsibilities increase, expenses also increase. Therefore, lesser the responsibilities lesser shall be financial support required. Governance expenditure in Panchayat system is minimum. In fact in olden days the financial help for a Panchayat had been nil. Of course this is not possible in present circumstances. However, in such a system requirement of funds shall be the least compared to any other system. In such a system even elections were not necessary. We need to find a system suitable for India and which would be the least complicated and the cheapest. This mean our old Panchayat system should be modified to take care of today’s challenges. Anotherarticle gives changes needed. This article only highlights that Indian system of democracy is the most suitable system for India.
|Migration for Food|
Although there is migration of people from villages to cities, majority of people still live in villages. Therefore, while considering any system for development and governance, village must be at the centre of the thinking. For that matter, even in cities and towns people stay in a ward or lane. This means people consider their respective ward or lane more important and dependable for their benefits and worries. This means even cities and towns are divided in to small pockets similar to villages. These pockets are ideal to be formed in to the smallest and the lowest part of territory in working out democratic system for India. Local administration should rest with Panchayat for each of such pocket. There is a need for a central system as security and development cannot be addressed independently for such villages. There should be central system through municipalities, tehsil, district, state and nation in this order. When such a system is developed it shall be simple and would produce quick results. What is necessary is there should be clear cut division between local and central systems formed.
|Forming a Group|
When such a system for governance is established, it is obvious that every one in the system would work for overall security and development of people in respective area. When aim of every one in the system is progress/development and security of people the question of opposition doesn’t come in to existence. Hence, there cannot be an opposition party when governance is considered. What is needed is to have a body who will study acts of members in governance and oppose decisions/actions which are harmful to people. Such a body could be named as audit body rather than opposition party.
|Present Ruling and Opposition|
While establishing a body for governance, body for audit also must be simultaneously formed. Procedure for this should be all elected members in the house should choose by majority vote both heads (i.e. governance and audit). These heads should form their respective cabinets. Size of each of the cabinets should be fixed in advance. A general limit for audit cabinet could be 25% or less that of governance cabinet. Present rules for governance cabinet may be found acceptable. To remove any of the heads of cabinet minimum 67% of the elected strength of house must pass no confidence motion against the respective head. This will give stability to system. Further each of the heads will have wider choice to select cabinet colleagues.