Thinking independently, in India, is termed as “unconventional” and “unorthodox”. This is the reaction of the media when President APJ Abdul Kalam suggested that we should have a stable, two-party system in India. He is absolutely right. Here in India, any Kallu can wake up one day and declare a new political party and then after a few years cause a political, social or economic crisis: this is a small strength, but a big weakness of our democracy.
Our multi-party system (apart from the fact that we are inherently lazy and unfaithful) is the biggest reason why our country cannot make a meaningful progress neither in economy nor in social welfare. Neither a single influential party (for instance, the Congress) is good for the country nor the coalition system. The single, strong party turns dictatorial in no time, and the coalition government is nothing but chaos, whether it’s NDA or UPA or any other ABC or XYZ.
The two-party system will bring in ideological stability. People may argue that unlike the western democracies (most of them have two-party systems) ours is a highly diverse society and our interests, needs and aspirations cannot be capped under just two parties, but we have had this multi-party system for years and it hasn’t helped much. It has fostered corruption and inefficiency. The multi-party system constantly divides our country and keeps us backward.
[tags]kalam, two-party system[/tags]