It is a truth universally acknowledged that those who seek power are unfit to wield it. The preceding sentence is a mashup, stringing together quotes from Jane Austen and Plato. The coalition that comes to power after this election is likely to be a similarly incongruous mashup.
From top down, to candidates in specific constituencies, the choices before voters range from the uninspiring to the obscene. Leaving aside the criminals, voters can pick from a vast mass of petty time-servers.
Neither major alliance offers a manifesto that makes for stirring reading; neither has a track record that offers confidence. The key bits and pieces players who will shape the next government are even more dreary to contemplate. None have coherent agendas beyond their will to power.
One alliance is led by a lady who prefers to remain an extra-constitutional authority pulling strings from behind the throne. She is fronted by a quintessential bureaucrat, an intelligent man, who is much too disciplined to indulge in independent thought. The other alliance is led by an octogenarian with a long, uninspiring track record.
Then, there are the lefties still in the time warp of a bipolar world that ended over 15 years ago. There are the regional satraps, who want to be the big fish in small ponds, where they can play caste and community games. There is the lady who believes she should be the boss simply because she is not high-caste. There is the lady who believes she should be the boss simply because the alternative is the Left Front.
It is a truism that every nation gets the political leadership it deserves. But is this really true? One may argue that the vast Indian middle-class that has shown such energy and ingenuity in bootstrapping itself out of poverty has stepped away from the political process. It is true that few people capable of earning an honest living step into the political cauldron.
The Meera Sanyals, Shashi Tharoors and Mallika Sarabhais are thin on the ground. It is also true that middle-class votes count for less because the middle-class vote is largely urban. Urban constituencies always have more voters and therefore, urban votes count for less. The only exception is in proportional representation, such as in Israel, where the entire nation is treated as one constituency. This is impractical in India with its diverse federalised structure.
But the abysmal quality of political governance is also a function of a very skewed electoral system. You need money to fight elections. A very large chunk of that money has to come from under-the-table since election expenditure is officially limited and the limits are totally absurd. Either remove the limits, or insist on public funding worked out at a per voter rate.
Second, a recognised political party is defined in India as an organisation that wins a certain percentage of the vote. Democratic internal structures are not required. Ideally, any individual ought to be able to sign up as a member of any political party simply by paying a membership fee. Also, every party should elect its office-bearers through the secret ballot of fee-paying members. There isn't a single recognised party that offers either process.
Until such time as internal reform is forced on political parties, India will have what amounts to a cargo cult imitation of democracy. It will continue to ape the forms while ignoring the substance. Until such time, it will also be impossible to pull in the middle class and decent people will remain largely debarred from politics.
Any serious political candidate starts his or her campaign with a lie when they promise to adhere to the official spending limit. You cannot build a honest, transparent efficient system on such rotten foundations.
Powered by 
