THE people’s deep distrust of politics is comprehensive and dangerous. It extends to representative government as we have known it: the party system, the political process and, not least, its principal performer, the politician.

Negative emotions do not help in reasoned discourse. It would, however, be foolish to ignore the phenomenon; whether it is the Tea Party hijacking the Republicans in the United States, the veteran dissenter Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of Britain’s Labour Party or Arvind Kejriwal’s brand of new politics in his Aam Aadmi Party.

The latter’s sweeping victory in the elections to the Delhi Assembly, forcing the BJP — once so powerful in the national capital — to bite the dust, reflected popular disdain for the politics of old.

There is popular disdain for the politics of old.

Sentiments of rejection are commonly voiced in the wake of a national crisis in which the political system is perceived by the people to have failed miserably. The noted French author Michel Houellebecq voiced them after the Nov 13 Paris attacks in an article in The New York Times titled, ‘How France’s leaders failed its people’. “There are people, political people, who are responsible for the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today, and sooner or later their responsibility will have to be examined,” he wrote in anger.

A telling recitation of the charges followed. The conclusion was damning. “One could cite many more examples of the gap, now an abyss, between the population and those supposed to represent it.

“The discredit that applies to all political parties today isn’t just huge; it is legitimate. And it seems to me, it really seems to me, that the only solution still available to us now is to move gently towards the only form of real democracy: I mean, direct democracy.”

It is, however, too late in the day to discard representative democracy. What is sorely needed is serious thought on its reform to meet the conditions of the 21st century.

In France, distrust of the party system has been continuously voiced. Nearly half a century ago, one of its foremost intellectuals Servan-Schreiber wrote in Le Monde that the country “can only be made modern, liveable and to the people’s own measure by transforming the political parties, not by rewriting the laws …

“Have the parties, as they stand, the capacity to carry this out? The answer is all too obvious and it is a cruel one. None of them has yet proved capable of changing itself. Gnawed at from above, undermined from below, they are trying to avoid death. ...Their leaders are ... sunk in intrigue, far from the public eye, clinching deals or venting quarrels, jockeying rivalries, swapping votes, begging for funds. The law of the underworld.”

The phlegmatic Brits will not go so far. Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party signifies not a rejection of the party system, but an ardent desire for its reform. The Labour Party adopted a new system for electing its leader in which anyone could vote if they paid a one-time fee of £3. Blairites thought that opening internal elections to the general public would diminish the influence of union members and anchor Labour in the centre ground. To their horror, the £3 offer was taken up by the left.

Corbyn’s is the triumph of the movement over the party. He is not acceptable to the Labour MPs: it was campaigners from a coalition of diverse organisations who put a rank outsider in the leader’s seat. He has served warning enough to all the parties, not Labour alone.

To begin with, the first-past-the-post electoral system has become oppressive. It excludes small parties which have a significant following in the country; the Greens, for example. Even if Corbyn were to fail as leader, dissatisfaction with the electoral system will remain.

In India, the heart of the problem is that its democratic constitution is being run by political parties governed by oligarchs. New blood cannot be injected without their approval.

What incentive is there for the young idealist with self-respect to submit to this? The remedy lies in fair and free elections to all the posts and institutions in the party. Jayaprakash Narayan worked hard to reform this but stumbled badly and at one stage even fell for party-less democracy.

Rather than reject politics itself or denounce the politician, it would be more helpful to define his role which is to voice distinct interests and harmonise them with the national weal.

As Prof Bernard Crick wrote in his classic In Defence of Politics, “...politics is a preoccupation of free men, and its existence is a test of freedom” — which is why dictators denounce politics and politicians. Powerful NGOs can help to correct both. They are a vital part of New Politics.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, November 28th, 2015