DEMOCRACY IS FARCE; SOLUTIONS..step 13: PRESIDENT AND GOVERNORS TO BE PUBLIC SERVANT IN REALITY AND AS SUCH MUST NOT HAVE ALLEGIANCE TO ANY PARTY. THEN QUESTION ARISES WHETHER PRESIDENT MUST BE ELECTED AS AT PRESENT BY THE MAJORITY PARTY OR BY PUBLIC BY VOTING. If President is elected by the public,but he/she belongs to a party, he/she remains inclined or dependent on that majority party as his/her policies have got to be voted and implemented through the Parliament. I THEREFORE THINK THAT PRESIDENT MUST BE ELECTED BY THE PARLIAMENT ETC. BUT WHEN ELECTED WITH ALLEGIANCE OR AS MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY PARTY, HE/SHE MUST RESIGN FROM THE PARTY AND AS SUCH WORK FOR THE NATION. It therefore becomes imperative if a bill is passed by the Parliament which generally happens that majority party gets its bills passed due to number, and if the President who as proposed becomes neutral and is to work for the nation, should take views of the Opposition, and then decide whether to approve the bill to become act or sends back with his own views in consultation with the leader of the majority party,, then the majority party gets obliged to get the bill passed as has been sent back by the President.IF IT IS DONE IN THE SPIRIT THAT PRESIDENT IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE NATION AND FOR THE NATION, the President by abandoning his or her membership of the party, will ensure that in public interest, he/she will appraise and scrutinise the bills sent to him/her and then sign these to become act and not necessarily what has been passed by the Parliament, he/she is obliged to sign without any objection. SAME PRINCIPLE SHALL APPLY FOR THE GOVERNORS ALSO. I believe if it is done, impartiality shall apply and the constitution will be implemented in the best manner possible. 2-6-21 I HAVE JUST AN IDEA-II; DEFECTIONS; I think DEFECTIONS should be strictly forbidden and the law as such must be abrogated. The basic idea must remain supreme; CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUENCY ARE SUPREME AND IF FOR ANY REASONS HE/SHE WANTS TO CHANGE FROM ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER, HE/SHE MUST RESIGN AND MUST FIGHT WITH THE AGENDA AND IDEOLOGY OF THE PARTY HE/SHE HAS OPTED OR WANTS TO JOIN. I feel convinced that as we see almost every day, the elected members are either solicited and/or bargained by illegal and unhealthy means or by offering him/her some coveted posts for which the soliciting party is tempting him/her to shift to their side or want him/her to commit to support it in voting and discussions. One may say that his/her constituency can call back its representative, which never happens and if such a course is thought of, a few influential and self-interested persons manage to push through, and claim that the representative is mandated. Hence this course of action or option must be rejected. THE ONLY OPTION AS SUCH SHALL REMAIN THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE RESIGNS AND FIGHTS FOR THE PARTY HE/SHE WISHES TO SHIFT. Hence after resignation, when this representative will go to the constituents, he/she will have to convince his/her them about his/her new ideology and how he/she thinks the constituents will benefit by him/her getting elected as representative of the party he/she is now propagating and he/she will have to contest against his opponents who hold the ideology and the party for which this change-over candidate was elected earlier. I AM SURE NONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL TAKE THE RISK OF RESIGNING AND GETTING RE-ELECTED.Thus personal interests will not prevail and the representative will continue representing the interests of his/her constituency which elected him/her for and also the waste of time and money will be avoided. tks.