Asking anyone, immaterial of the fact how low that person is placed, to relinquish some of his/her powers or rights for common good or any other reason is the most difficult task and will always face aggressive opposition, but the common good must supersede any level of resistance.

In a Perfect Democracy only the qualified candidates should be allowed to contest an election i.e. a person who as discussed earlier is:

a person who is above 30 years of age, and has completed at least 15 years of basic education in any subject, has done the basic orientation course. He should be a sane citizen of my Country and certainly not a criminal undergoing punishment for a criminal offence.

Apart from this he/she should not be debarred for the reason of limitation on contesting election as mentioned below.

The limitation on contesting election would be, that, though any person above the age of 30 years can contest an election for a public office, but no person can contest an election for the same office for more than three times and any candidate when contesting an election, if gets less than 1% of the total votes polled shall be debarred from contesting any future election for the same office.

In each election for the representation of people in the Government, there shall be two Houses of Parliament, Upper House and the Lower House. The candidates polling maximum number of votes in their respective constituencies shall be elected to the Upper House of the Parliament and the candidates polling the second maximum number of votes in their respective constituencies shall be elected to the Lower House of the Parliament. The votes polled by the elected members of both the upper and the Lower House of Parliament must not be less than 60% of the total numbers of votes polled. If this is not the case, a re-election should be conducted.

When the two candidates polling the highest number of votes fail to muster the support of 60% of voting voters, re-election must be conducted. In the re-election only those candidates, who constitute the upper 75% of the votes polled should be allowed to contest provided that the candidate contesting in the second stage have secured a minimum 10% of the polled votes in the first stage. Any candidate may retire at this stage also, provided the retiring candidate would not be allowed to canvass for election of any candidate, and a new candidate shall not be allowed to contest at this stage. For example: in an election candidate I, secures 35%, candidate II, 20%, candidate III, 21%, candidate IV, 9%, candidate V, 4%, candidate VI, 3% and candidates VII, VIII, IX & X between 0.1 and 3.5%. It means in the re-election only candidate I, II & III will participate as they constitute 76% of the polled votes and moreover the other candidates in this example have less than 10% votes because of which also they become ineligible. In the re-election in most of the cases the highest two candidates will have a combined polled votes percentage of 60%.

If in a rare case even after the re-election the top two candidates are combinely unable to secure even 60% of the votes then the candidate securing the highest number of votes polled shall be nominated to the Upper House by the President provided the nomination is upheld by 60% of the voting members of the Parliament. Similarly the candidate securing the second highest number of the votes shall be nominated to the Lower House provided that 60% of the voting members support the nomination. Ideally all such nominations should be passed by the House but when members have reservations on the nomination of a particular candidate for any reason and  do not support his nomination, in that event, if any one of the nomination of a area fails either in the Upper House or in the Lower House, there shall again be a re-election among the top three candidates (in terms of votes polled) of the area.

It must be noted that all the States including my Country practising democracy in the present form are not democratic in their true nature on one more account that they send the person to the Parliament even if there is a 70 % voting against that person. Most of the candidates who are elected to the Parliament have the mandate of less than even 50% of the people. It is most unfair in any democracy not to regard the public mandate ( Though it is claimed that democracy means selection of representative through public mandate).

So in a Perfect Democracy it is must that at least a minimum of 60% people, if not more, get representation in the Government through their elected representatives. For this purpose also, I propose that both the candidates, the first and the second in terms of the vote polled be elected and for their election they must have combinely polled a minimum of 60% of votes but a percentage higher than that will always be appreciated.

Since there must not be any political party in a Perfect Democracy so the voters in a Perfect Democracy are supposed to elect the most virtuous candidate among the contesting candidates. Virtue can not be the asset of the candidate polling the highest votes, it is scattered everywhere and it can be safely assumed that even the candidate securing the second highest numbers of votes is considered virtuous enough to represent by a considerable number of votes (in a No-party system), so electing two candidates in this manner will reinforce the objectives of Perfect Democracy even further.

On successful election to either House, the candidate must be sworn in only after he has successfully acquired a training on the affairs of Parliament and the Government. The training must be compulsory for each and every elected member and the sanctity of the training should be no less than that of the oath of the office. This training must be repeated in the form of a capsule course twice during the term of a member. There is nothing more foolish than the assumption in the modern day Governments that a person who is elected suddenly gets divine enlightenment to deal with the affairs of the State and become self sufficient and fully knowledgeable.

Once elected the same person must not hold the same office for more than three terms. This would apply in the case of local members elected, members going to any of the House of Government, and any other office where the member comes to power by the votes of the public, whether directly or indirectly. However in the case of the Prime Minister office the limit shall be two terms and never two terms in succession. In case of the office of President the limit shall be one term only, it means that the outgoing President shall not be eligible for a re-election.

The number of terms a person can serve must be limited, because in majority of the cases a person is able to achieve the objective of his coming to power (and in a case where the objective is not even achieved after 15 years, then such a person does not deserve to be in power) and initiate the other long term objectives, after serving for two/three terms the sensitivity of a person to his surroundings also decreases and he/she starts adjusting to the situations, the enthusiasm starts dying off but the efficiency to sway public emotions is enhanced and the talent to generate support increases, the person starts caring relatively lesser about the ideas and opinions of the same people who elected him, this is a dangerous sign for a Perfect Democracy. Limitation will also ensure that there are no permanent power holders and sly people do not use the surplus resources acquired by corrupt means to gain further power and immunity using those surplus resources.

Once a Member of Parliament exhaust all his terms of service in the Parliament he must be offered a paid job in community servicing and public welfare or such like positions and assignments. The outgoing member must never be offered a direct Government assignment, it must be understood that once the term of a member expires he is deemed to be retired from holding any official Government positions. Anyhow the member must be free to participate in any competitive screening process in his individual capacity strictly on merit (no reservation) and if otherwise eligible then he must be allowed to hold that position.

All candidates must contest in their individual capacity and any alliance with any political party or association should not be allowed. All elected members are supposed to work for national progress as per the National agenda. They would be representing the area from where they got elected and would be giving their views (arrived at, on the basis of public opinion in their respective area) about the needs of that geographical area apart from other National/State interest matters. They will certainly have the full right to participate in the framing and drafting of future National policies.

The area which a representative represents and the population which he is to represent is again a matter of deliberation, and physical reach of people and the work load which a human can cope with must be taken into consideration before deciding on it. The modern day gadgets certainly serve as a extension to human ability and senses.

In the same manner the President would be elected by the members of both the Houses, and any elected member who has polled more than 50% exercised votes in his area and declared his intention to contest the office of the President beforehand shall be eligible for election for the office of President. The same procedure as to the election of the Prime Minister is to apply in this case also. The tenure of a President would be 5 years i.e. the term of the Parliament.

In the case of the Prime Minister the tenure will be half that of the Parliament, and in case of the President tenure of service shall be the tenure of the Parliament, provided that they shall vacate their office before the expiry of their term if the Parliament so decides. This will ensure that the State is not pushed unknowingly in the direction of ideas, opinion and biases of one person, and a chance to rectify such things in the same term of the Government, if it is taking place. It will ensure accountability of the Prime Minister and the President in the same House which voted them to the office. Since the elections of both the offices are indirect, there is no additional cost incurred for this election. The same person must not be elected for the office of the Prime Minister for two successive terms and the President should not be eligible for re-election . This will give the members and the public a chance to compare the performance of the Prime Minister and at the same time give a chance to the outgoing Prime Minister elect to see the events from across the table. It will give an insight to perform in a still better manner, if elected again.

The voters in an election who are to elect a person to a public office must be only qualified voters, as discussed earlier, i.e. ;

an eligible voter must have successfully completed the basic ten years of his/her education and he/she must be sane and a citizen of my Country.

The election of all offices, barring the elections in the Parliament shall be by secret voting. The voting can be manual or electronic , though the electronic one is more desirable because it would be more reliable, economical and time saving. It is desirable that all the eligible voters be issued a multipurpose electronic identity card with a rugged memory chip carrying all the details and various social identity cards and the voting card for voting. The ideal case would be where there would be voting booths, located at different positions in the city/town/area and a person could go to any of the voting booths located anywhere at his convenience and cast the vote after inserting the electronic identity card. (All the data in the electronic card should also be stored in various local and a centralised control room and whenever a person uses his electronic card for any purpose, the local and centralised computerised control system will record the same since every unit recognising the electronic card shall be connected with the local and central units. This way the same card will serve scores of other functions and the price will come down apart from increasing the utility, efficiency and reducing corruption.) The booths may be permanent and the process of election/voting can continue for a week or any duration decided by an impartial body conducting elections, after taking into account the public convenience. This kind of electronic voting and permanent electronic voting booths will have a great advantage whenever the Government wants to take public opinion or wants an opinion voting, same too can be done without any extra cost. If such a thing comes into existence, it shall open a whole gamut of possibilities.

The cost of the election should be borne by both the candidates and the Government in the following manner ;

The cost of canvassing, travelling, public meetings, man to man contacts, etc. should be borne by the candidate himself under the strict vigilance of the Government.

The cost of literature substituting the present day political manifesto, which is to contain the National agenda, the profile and bio-data of all contesting candidates of the area and their promises for the local area and national issues which they intend to raise. These should be in the form of booklets and freely available to the general public at a very nominal or highly subsidised cost. The posters declaring the candidature of all the contestants along with their photographs and the desired profile of the candidates shall be printed only by the Government and all such posters shall be fixed at reasonable distances at public places which are screened and declared beforehand. Apart from this the Government must also provide media support to the contesting candidates as described elsewhere in this chapter.

Even after the election it is important that the people of the respective area be provided information about the functioning of their elected candidate regularly. This can be done by providing a booklet every year at regular intervals containing the attendance of the elect in the Parliament, the list of issues and questions raised along with their quantitative numbers and contents, expenditure incurred on the member and other statistical data. This booklet must be freely available at subsidised cost throughout the area so that anyone may refer to it. This will insure added accountability of the elect to the very people who elected him.

In a perfect democratic state, it is important that the money does not play a greater role than is desirable for contesting an election because whenever money power is perceived to play an important and a major role, the process of democracy is corrupted. The most dangerous thing is that this change would not even be recognised and is very difficult to control. It is a precondition for a Perfect Democracy that the participation in an election by different candidates is with equal material resources. If the public start perceiving money as important ingredient in election, it will make people believe that money can purchase anything, even the highest post in a Country. This will make money more desirable than it should be and the society as a whole will degrade and pay more emphasis on material wealth than anything else, this (present) situation is not desirable.

(This is reinforced by the belief which is true to a large extent, that the rich, resourceful, powerful and manipulative offenders are mostly spared punishment for the reason that they are perceived as dangerous as enemies and good as associates, in the present setup most of the time their excesses are spared as if they are immune to the laws and their privileges exceed the legal rights. This is mainly because even the law makers, implementors and dispensers too feel the same way.)

All the contesting candidate must spend money strictly within the limits provided for doing so, in the expenses incurred by the candidate all the expenses incurred by the near and dear ones and the supporters of the contesting candidate is to be included. The limit on spending of election should not be more than the average saving of a average earning person working for seven years. If the limit is more than this, then it will discourage people from contesting and people materially not so well off would not be able to contest the elections or if they contest there are chances that they may suffer because of unequal use of material resources.

It is no more required to spend that aggressively in the present times. The Government can help in this case also by providing free and fixed access to media (including the Television and Radio) for addressing the electorate, it is also possible to allow permanent Teleconferencing booths in all areas at local (as well as national level) where elections are to be conducted. The candidates shall be provided limited time for using the facilities of different networks directed at a specified area of the constituency. The candidates can address their voters, answer their questions and participate in discussions. This method apart from being more efficient, effective and emphatic, would be ten to twelve times more economical to use. Apart from the above mentioned benevolent effects of the reform the election monitoring agency shall be able to keep an effective check on the expenses and the candidate too would not be burdened.

Whenever a person uses more resources than he is allowed to use, the direct and the most natural inference drawn is that the person is not honest and is playing against the rules and that he is desperate to come in power. History has it that whenever people who seek power for the sake of it and are willing to obtain it by all means, come to power, it preannounces the doom of the State. Again the deduction of logic says that a person who spends more money than he can legally spend, comes to power, he is bound to recover the same by direct corruption or by indirectly showering benefits to people who can repay the favours. It would not be wrong to say that whenever someone adopts extra legal methods to come to power, 99.9999 % of the times their interest is not philanthropic and the intentions are doubtful.

The spending on election should be most closely monitored and any anomaly found in it should be taken seriously. The proved delinquent must be dealt with most strictly.

No candidate contesting an election is to condemn the National policy and raise a point in public during the election which would be against the existing National policy, however once elected the member shall have full right to raise any such question on the floor of the House and the House with a majority vote may decide on the issue and can amend the National policy. The object of this is to stop candidates from raising issues, which promote regionalism or sectionalism and will get immediate support, these issues may appeal to the emotions of the voters, but may be are otherwise not implementable or are against the interest of a perfect democratic state. Since any decision about amendment of the policies would be taken by the elected House, so it serves no purpose to raise any controversial issue in public.

If during the tenure of a representative, he is charged with a serious criminal charge, the Council of Advisors will evaluate all the evidence on record and decide whether the person is to continue in office or not. If they decide that the person in question must resign, the Council of Advisors shall so advise the House which may vote the representative out.