Participation of the People

The structure of governance in a state must reflect the values and needs of its people while ensuring effective administration and representation. Drawing from the philosophical underpinnings of creativity and holistic thinking represented by the right hemisphere and the universal mind in Plato’s Republic and Indian cosmology, this system positions the state legislative assembly as the third tier of governance. As the title suggests that people are creative and industrious and need a fair system and framework to maintain that flow. The creative atmosphere should be relaxed, and that’s why it needs to be democratic.

In this system, the state legislative assembly functions as a critical tier of governance situated below the national Parliament. This assembly embodies the democratic spirit by ensuring the participation of the masses through elections, with the Governor serving as the Parliament’s representative to guide and oversee its operations. The Chief Minister, likened to Brahma, the universal mind representing the people in Indian cosmology. It symbolises the state’s role as a galaxy within the nation’s cosmos.

This metaphorical framework is required for the harmony of intellect, mind, and societal elements, fostering a balanced and representative governance structure. The democratic process extends downward to village and ward levels, where grassroots participation becomes increasingly pronounced. Elections at these levels amplify the representation of local ideas, ensuring that governance remains responsive to community needs. This tiered system aligns with the ideal of a state where creativity, emotions, and holistic thinking attributes of the right hemisphere are channelled into a participatory framework that reflects the collective will of the people.

The Importance of the Family System

The family is the fundamental unit of society, it is a cohesive entity. Indian family values that have historically been celebrated for their strength and continuity. Family values thrive across the ages. Phrases like ‘Raghukul Reet’ symbolise the enduring traditions of familial duty; they resound as testaments to this legacy. The upbringing and development of individuals within a family context are deemed critical, as they shape the future citizens of the nation. Research supports this perspective, indicating that individuals detached from family structures are more prone to criminal behaviour and social disorder (Smith, 2020).

The current democratic system, which pits the individual against the state, is critiqued for neglecting the family’s foundational role. Humans are inherently products of their families, with early upbringing influencing their psychological development. The proposed model addresses this oversight by prioritising family values, proposing that no government service or public roles be granted to families supporting criminal activities. This policy reinforces the family’s accountability in maintaining societal order, aligning governance with cultural principles that have sustained Indian society for centuries.

Patriarchy and Matriarchy

Both patriarchy and matriarchy as historical responses to biological, cultural, economic, and social dynamics. These family structures have shaped power dynamics, roles, and identities within societies. In Eastern cultures, the extended family system—emphasising filial piety, inter-generational support, and collective responsibility—has been a cornerstone, often encompassing a broad kinship network beyond the nuclear family. Early human societies, akin to hunter-gatherer communities, prioritised group cooperation over rigid familial hierarchies, focusing on survival through collective decision-making (Thomas, 2015).

Patriarchy, however, has dominated historical narratives, exerting profound effects on politics, economics, education, and culture. It is often blamed for limiting women’s participation but this was due to a practical necessity of travelling and participation. Patriarchy’s prevalence was utilitarian and logical and it gets misinterpreted due to religious shifts and misinformation campaigns that deteriorated women’s societal positions.

The rise of capitalism and globalisation has further disrupted traditional family structures. The shift from family wages to female factory labour, coupled with global migration, has eroded patriarchal norms (Brown, 2019). U.S. propaganda highlights feminism as a cultural solvent, dissolving traditional systems, a perspective that finds resonance in critiques of globalisation’s impact on family cohesion (Fraser, 2005). This tension underscores the need for a governance model that reconciles modern economic realities with traditional values.

The proposed legislative assembly offers a framework that bridges democratic ideals with the family-centric ethos of Indian culture. By embedding family values into governance through policies like barring criminal-supporting families from public roles, it seeks to restore stability overlooked by individualistic democratic systems. The Chief Minister’s role as Brahma reflects a philosophical commitment to representing the universal mind of the people, while the Governor’s oversight ensures alignment with national objectives. The system could integrate these insights by promoting gender equity within family and governance structures, ensuring that traditional values evolve without losing their essence. Extended family networks, historically vital in Eastern societies, could be leveraged to enhance community resilience, aligning with the democratic emphasis on grassroots participation.

Franchise System

Modern democracy rests on the universal franchise system or universal suffrage. It is a cornerstone of modern democracy and grants equal voting rights regardless of an individual's societal contribution. However, this system faces criticism for enabling outcomes where uninformed voters, populist movements, or demographic strategies may skew political representation.

This egalitarian ideal, while appealing in its simplicity, is increasingly questioned for its failure to account for disparities in merit, responsibility, and societal contribution. Is it just to equate the political influence of a beggar with that of a corporate billionaire who drives economic growth, or a criminal with that of an inspector general upholding the law? Such equivalencies undermine the notion of justice by disregarding individual contributions. The universal franchise system, despite its egalitarian intent, exhibits significant flaws that undermine justice and societal stability:

Populism and Misinformation: Equal voting rights enable populist leaders to sway uninformed voters with emotional appeals rather than reasoned policy. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) highlight how such tactics erode democratic institutions, as seen in contemporary populist movements worldwide.

Vote-Selling and Corruption: In many democracies, particularly in less-developed regions, citizens sell their votes for immediate gains, such as cash or goods. Schaffer (2007) documents this pervasive practice, which distorts electoral integrity and prioritises short-term benefits over long-term societal good. For instance, cash-for-votes schemes persist in India, where candidates are often caught with huge cash reserves, distorting electoral outcomes.

Identity-Based Voting: Voting driven by ethnic, religious, or communal affiliations often overshadows policy substance, fostering division. Horowitz (1985) notes this trend in multicultural societies, where identity politics destabilises governance and prioritises group loyalty over merit. Ethnic and religious identity often supersede policy considerations. In India, caste-based voting has historically influenced elections (Chandra, 2004), while in the U.S., racial polarisation remains significant (Tesler, 2016).

Demographic Manipulation and Vote Banks: Certain communities exploit the universal franchise by increasing their population to secure political power through sheer numbers. This "vote bank" strategy undermines meritocracy, as influence stems from demographic strength rather than contributions, weakening societal tenacity. Theoretical models suggest that rapid population growth in specific groups could alter electoral dynamics (Lutz et al., 2014).

These deficiencies reveal the universal franchise’s inability to reward achievement or deter exploitation, necessitating a system that prioritises merit over equality. A weighted franchise system, where voting power reflects merit, role, and achievement, offers a compelling alternative. A weighted system promotes equity by rewarding contributions. Philosopher Daniel Bell argues that meritocracy, if transparent, can enhance social mobility (Bell, 1973).

The concept of a weighted franchise system draws from meritocratic ideals, which assert that rewards and influence should align with ability and effort. In The Republic, Plato (375 BCE) envisioned governance by a philosopher-king elite, selected for their wisdom and virtue, rather than by an undifferentiated populace. John Stuart Mill (1861) similarly endorsed plural voting, proposing that educated citizens receive additional votes to offset the influence of the less informed. These thinkers challenge the assumption that all individuals are equally equipped to make political decisions, positing that voting power should reflect one’s capacity to advance the common good. Aristotle’s view of justice further supports this: "Justice is thought to be equality, and so it is, but not for all, only for equals" (Politics). A weighted system thus aligns political influence with societal contribution, fostering a governance model rooted in fairness rather than numerical parity. In ancient Athens, voting rights were limited to male citizens who completed military training, tying political power to a form of civic duty (Ober, 2008). In 19th-century Britain, voting was restricted to property owners, a crude proxy for economic contribution, though it excluded the working class (Himmelfarb, 1966).

These examples, while flawed, illustrate that political influence has often been linked to societal roles, providing a foundation for refining a merit-based system.

A weighted franchise system assigns voting power based on objective criteria reflecting an individual’s societal contributions. Potential metrics include:

Educational Attainment: Higher education often enhances understanding of governance and policy (Dee, 2004), justifying greater influence for the educated. College graduates might receive additional votes, incentivising informed participation (Brennan, 2016).

Economic Contribution: Tax contributions could correlate with voting power, as seen in pre-19th-century property requirements.

Professional Achievements: Entrepreneurs, scientists, or public servants who excel in their fields demonstrate leadership and innovation, warranting increased voting power.

Civic Contributions: Volunteerism, philanthropy, and community service reflect a commitment to society, meriting recognition in the political sphere. Volunteers or public servants could gain weighted votes (Bell, 2015).

Criminal Record: Individuals who violate societal trust through criminal acts could face reduced voting power, aligning influence with responsibility.

Implementation would require a transparent, impartial framework, perhaps managed by an independent commission to evaluate merit and prevent bias or favouritism. Maximum votes per individual can be limited to prevent oligarchy. The system can be designed to be dynamic to facilitate regular updates to reflect evolving societal values. Transparent oversight bodies, akin to anti-corruption commissions, could monitor criteria application (Persson et al., 2003). An ad-hoc matrix is given below.

Note: No Voting rights in Brahmacharya Ashram (<25 Years). Every Individual above 25 Years in the Grihastha Ashram 1 Vote. Being a family head is a responsibility. Max Voting weightage per person is 100. No voting rights for people who have committed a crime in the last 5 years. No voting rights for people who receive government aid for 3 years. Taxpayer Slab is logarithmic to curb oligarchy.

A generic table of Voting Weightage

Age

<25 Yrs 0

>25 Yrs 1

>50 Yrs 5

>75 Yrs 10

Family Head

Equal to the Sum of Votes of Family Members

Education

<10th 0

>10th 1

Graduate 3

PG 5

PhD 10

Taxpayer

Nil tax 0

<5 Lakh 1

>5 Lakh 2

>10 Lakh 5

> 100 L 10

>1000 L 20

Awards

State 1

National 5

Top National 10

INTL 10

Gallantry 10

Top Gallantry 20

Social Service

> 5 Yrs 1

>10 Yrs 3

>20 Years 5

>30 years 10

Military Service

> 5 Yrs 1

Agni Veer

>10 Yrs 3

>20 Years 5

>30 years 10

Misc

As Specified by the Selection and Election Commission

Using this matrix, as an example following tables for the following generic roles have been prepared.

Professor/ Scientist

Sl No

Qualifier

Points

Remarks

1

Individual Voter

1

2

Family Head

5

5 Member Family

3

PhD

10

4

National Award

5

Padma Shri

5

Taxpayer

5

Slab >10 Lakh

Total

26

Typical Government Servant

Sl No

Qualifier

Points

Remarks

1

Individual Voter

1

2

Family Head

6

6 Member Family

3

Graduate

3

4

Taxpayer

5

Slab >10 Lakh

5

Age

45 Years

Total

15

Industrialist

Sl No

Qualifier

Points

Remarks

1

Individual Voter

1

2

Family Head

8

4 Member Family

1 > 50 years

3

Post Graduate

5

4

Taxpayer

10

Slab >100 Lakh

5

Age

5

>50 Years

Total

29

House Holder

Sl No

Qualifier

Points

Remarks

1

Individual Voter

1

2

Family Head

10

10 Member Family >25 Years

3

Matriculate

1

4

5

Total

12

By amplifying the voices of informed and contributing citizens, a weighted franchise system reduces the sway of populist demagogues who exploit mass ignorance. It also diminishes the impact of vote banks, as power derives from merit rather than population size.

Rewarding education, professional success, and civic engagement incentivised individuals to contribute meaningfully to society. This aligns with Sandel’s (2020) concept of justice as merit, where recognition reflects effort and talent. A governance system led by the capable and committed fosters stability, ensuring decisions prioritise long-term progress over short-term populism.

Opponents argue that a weighted franchise undermines political equality, a democratic cornerstone. Yet, proponents assert that justice demands differentiation based on contribution. Equating a traitor with a patriot or an uneducated individual with a scientist is not equality but a denial of merit’s role in society. The system upholds human dignity by protecting all under the "principle of existence," while reserving political influence for those who enhance the collective good.

A weighted system risks entrenching an elite class, excluding the disadvantaged. To counter this, access to education, professional opportunities, and civic participation must be broadened, ensuring merit is attainable across socioeconomic lines. Transparent criteria and oversight can further prevent the system from favouring entrenched interests.

Political Parties and Electoral Systems

Society is inherently segmented by a variety of divisions. Some, such as those based on occupation and geography, emerge naturally, while others, including divisions rooted in property, caste, and religion, are constructed by human systems. The emergence of political parties has introduced an additional layer of division, polarising society to secure predictable vote banks. Over time, political parties have evolved from informal coalitions into formalised institutions with offices, office bearers, and bank accounts. This formalisation has not only entrenched societal divides but also provided a legitimised avenue for corruption. The political kickbacks, though still illegal, are becoming socially tolerated. The formal political parties should be abolished, replaced by a continuous election system where voting occurs monthly in one or more constituencies, complemented by a tenure-based framework to ensure stability.

Societal divisions are an intrinsic feature of human organisation. Natural divisions stem from differences in work, region, and cultural practices. For example, urban and rural populations often develop distinct needs and identities based on their geographic contexts. Conversely, man-made divisions arise from socioeconomic constructs such as property ownership, caste hierarchies, and religious affiliations. These divisions frequently lead to inequality and social stratification.

Tilly (2003) observes that democratisation can either bridge or widen these gaps, depending on how political systems manage them. In societies with entrenched divisions, such as India’s caste system, these cleavages often become tools for political mobilisation, further fragmenting social cohesion. Political parties exploit preexisting divisions (caste, religion, class) to secure vote banks. Parties do not reflect social divisions; they actively construct them. In India, political parties have historically weaponised caste identities (Jaffrelot, 2003), while in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans amplify racial and ideological divides (Iyengar & Krupenkin, 2018).

Political parties have undergone a significant transformation since their inception. Initially informal gatherings of like-minded individuals, they have grown into structured entities with formal infrastructure, as noted by Katz and Mair (1995) in their concept of the "cartel party." This formalisation has enabled parties to polarise society deliberately, exploiting existing divisions to cultivate loyal vote banks. Lipset and Rokkan (1967) argue that party systems often mirror and reinforce social cleavages, such as class or religion, embedding these divides into the political fabric.

The formalisation of political parties has also normalised corruption. Transparency International (2020) identifies political financing as a primary driver of corruption worldwide, with parties amassing funds through illicit means to sustain their operations. While such practices remain illegal in many jurisdictions, they are increasingly accepted as a necessary evil of political life. This shift undermines democratic accountability, as parties prioritise self-preservation over public welfare, deepening distrust in governance institutions. 75% of political funding in 2019 came from anonymous sources.

The elimination of formal political parties offers a potential remedy to these issues. Without party structures, candidates would compete based on individual merit and policy platforms rather than relying on partisan loyalty or identity politics. This shift could dismantle the vote-bank system, reducing polarisation and fostering a more substantive political discourse. India’s Parliament witnessed a 26% decline in productive hours due to partisan clashes. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature, the only non-partisan state body in the U.S., passes 30% more bipartisan bills than partisan peers (Wright & Schaffner, 2002). Historically, governance without formal parties has precedent; George Washington, in his Farewell Address (1796), cautioned against the divisive "spirit of party," advocating for unity over factionalism. While rare in modern democracies, this vision suggests that a party-less system could prioritise the common good over institutional self-interest, curbing the corruption inherent in party funding.

Continuous Election System. In place of traditional periodic elections, a continuous election should take place, where voting occurs monthly in one or more constituencies. Inspired by staggered election models, such as those used for the U.S. Senate, this system would distribute electoral activity over time, preventing the societal upheaval often associated with nationwide campaigns. Norris (2004) highlights how electoral engineering can shape political behaviour, suggesting that a continuous system could maintain governmental responsiveness while minimising conflict intensity. Japan’s House of Councillors uses staggered elections every three years, maintaining stability despite frequent lower-house changes (Reed et al., 2012). By limiting elections to specific constituencies each month, this approach ensures that political power remains fluid and adaptable, reducing the risk of entrenched dominance or populist surges.

To complement the continuous election system, a tenure-based system would guarantee fixed terms for elected officials, providing stability amidst ongoing electoral cycles. Fixed tenures prevent frequent leadership turnovers, enabling long-term policy planning and implementation. This stability is critical for economic development and social cohesion, as it mitigates the uncertainty of perpetual electoral shifts. Together, continuous elections and tenure-based stability create a dynamic yet balanced governance model, ensuring that representatives remain accountable while maintaining a steady administrative framework. Voters can engage with detailed platforms via digital civic education tools (e.g., Estonia’s e-governance model; Kalvet, 2012).

The institutionalisation of political parties has distorted democracy into a zero-sum game of division and corruption. A non-partisan system with continuous, staggered elections offers a viable alternative, prioritising governance over partisanship. As Thomas Jefferson warned, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, we must rely on the people’s collective reason, not factional agendas.”