Why Gandhi's vision of Partyless Democracy was unacceptable

Most persons today would say that political parties are a necessary evil. In India, it is clear to the general public that political parties and politicians leave much to be desired and yet very little can be done about this matter.

Mahatma Gandhi foresaw this situation soon after India's independence in 1947; he felt that soon the voice of the people would be forgotten. He contemplated a system of partyless democracy so that the elected representative would be directly accessible to the voter.

The political genius of Gandhi, which put an end to the British raj non-violently and brought the curtains down on the colonial era would have ushered in a new, vibrant form of democracy. But this was not to be.

Gandhi could have convinced Nehru and other leaders about the grassroots transformation partyless democracy would bring about. Gandhi's emphasis on the development of villages was possibly a hindrance. No doubt 80% of the population lived in villages. But Nehru wanted to modernize India quickly and he was perhaps not attracted by Gandhi's proposal of 'Village Swaraj'.

Grass roots transformation is not antagonistic to modernization. While Gandhi saw spiritual transformation preceding material development, Nehru saw the need for urgent material development to end widespread poverty and party-based democracy was apparently not a hindrance. But times were such that a in-depth discussion between them on the pros and cons of partyless democracy was not possible.

All that was needed was a formulation of partyless democracy in terms that would be attractive to both the spiritual and the modern mind.