Partyless Parliament

Hey, One extraordinary question

How Parliament will function, if all elected MP are independent MP (without representing a Party) ?

There are many questions in bay.
Let us discuss one by one.

Thanks.

Nearly 70 years ago, five years before we became Independent, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had firmly stressed that India needs not a Parliamentary, but a Presidential Form of Government...

Seems like we're all thinking that route now...in one way or the other...must admire the brilliance and far-sightedness of that man...

yesss ....... Netaji was correct ...... and at this moment its proved that what a mess this Govt has created ..

If you wanna know a bit more about how Netaji is extremely relevant today, you might go here -

ANNA HAZARE - GANDHIAN, or more INDIAN ?

Summit.

How Parliament will function, if all elected MP are independent MP (without representing a Party) ?
Please I want to know the answer because elected MP are representing more party they belong than their constitution.

You want to know the answer...?...But then....Who has the answer...?

Without party there vl be no democracy. it vl b like jiski lathi usi ki bhais. so my dear brother if all mp vl b independent then they vl free to do more scams.
JAI HIND

(1) "Without party there vl be no democracy. it vl b like jiski lathi usi ki bhais."


On what basis are you saying this ?

What has having all Candidates as Independents have to do with the existence or decline of Democracy ?

Yes, you can have all Independent MPs and yet a Fully Functional Democracy.

If having Independent Candidates was so risky to the Existence of a Democracy, then why would that've been allowed under the Indian Constitution ? A number of Members in our Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are, as well as have been, Independents.

(2) "so my dear brother if all mp vl b independent then they vl free to do more scams"...

Again what does the quantum of scams have to do anything with Members being Independent or Partied ?

We've had Political Parties rule the Parliament and Nation for this long. And the number of scams only increased with time.

Political Parties are more likely to be more corrupt because of the Political Clout they enjoy. Political Parties with huge number of seats in the Parliament can actually Protect Corruption instead of destroying it, as you've seen in the case of the Present UPA Govt. When a scam comes up, be it for any Minister or Member of that Party or Alliance, the Party in most cases tries to suppress, oppose and/or divert the proceedings against the scam, in order to protect it image, or to please its funders.

In contrast, Independent Candidates have the Protection of only themselves, and as such are likely to be less corrupt, as they can manage to gather little support if they fall into any Problem (like Corruption or Scam Investigation).

Hence a Corrupt Member of a Political Party is likely to Enjoy a Lot More Protection (all members of the Party will try to protect him) than an Independent Candidate, and hence will be more likely to indulge in Corruption.

And this goes Exactly Opposite to the grain of what you're trying to say here.

I'd request you to kindly research, ponder and analyze your statement thoroughly before Posting it on the Forums, because wrong statements can promote Misinformation. And a Misinformed Society is double dangerous than an Uniformed One (Remember : Ardh-Satya Mithyaa se bhi zyada Khatarnaak Hota Hai).

The Nature that a Parliament with all Independent Members might assume :

The Nature of such a Government being Run by Parliament with Most or All Independent Members will come close to be, though not exactly, Presidential. For a Presidential type of Government, you might study that of the USA.

Thanks,

Summit.

Thank you Summit Ensign for analyzing the facts about 'Partyless Parliament' promptly. And again, Why one Indian should oppose another Indian in parliament?
What is meant by opposition party?
Are we electing them in majority as representative to just oppose our own government?
I think the answer should be 'Partyless Parliament'.

(1) "Why one Indian should oppose another Indian in parliament?"

There are only two ways to prevent this -

(i) Don't have Indians in the Parliament. Have Britishers instead. Would you do that ? Or maybe...Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Mexican, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch........People from the Moon....? Would you do that ?

(ii) Have a One-Member Parliament. Only One Indian. No other to oppose.

(2) "What is meant by opposition party?
Are we electing them in majority as representative to just oppose our own government?"

Yes, we are....but the sad fact is....they have stopped opposing the government, and started opposing........us........

(3) "I think the answer should be 'Partyless Parliament'."

What's the question..........

Thanks,

Summit.