Diversity and Democracy

Diversity is important for a healthy democracy. Whether in demographics or in political representation diversity plays an important role. A diverse demographics ensures that there is free flow of ideas. Diverse political representation ensures that people's(minorities and ethnic) rights are being taken care.

The very essence of democracy is changing governance, and this comes as direct result of difference in ideologies. Whether it is change of power from one political power to another or it is change of ministries from one person to another, both are equally important.
Take here example of Pakistan and India. We both essentially are same people (or more appropriately 'were' before 1947). Both are sprouts of one entity. A lot of culture is still shared between Pakistan's Punjab area and India's Punjab and Delhi region. But then came a difference.
Pakistan's demographics restricted to one culture, that of Islam, as a result the political representation and governance also became mess of altering phases of dictatorship and democracy. India celebrates her history of Maurya rule, Mughal rule, British rule and democracy while Pakistan has no such history. Six decades afterward, Pakistan is a failed state while India celebrates its democracy and dream of becoming super-power(dream it maybe, but can Pakistan dare to see same dream).

But the main point is about an additional thing, which if of more to introspect rather than retrospect the history. India is a Federal Parliamentary Republic. Which means there is state-wise government as well as one central government. Some realities in regard to India are that election of MPs is almost influenced by the same lines along which state-government was elected. A single party doesn't have presence in all the constituencies to form central government.
Over time, as influence of congress reduced and there were internal division of congress, these things have given rise to fragmentation of elected MPs to different parties. As a result, in the current scenario, it is difficult for any party to be at power stand-alone without any coalition.
This fragmentation ensures that there is diversity of elected MPs from different MPs. The one thing that can be hoped from this scenario is accountable government as there isn't a single party at the helms. But as it happens in last governement of UPA, accountability was traded off with political benefits. To be in power becomes the sole motivation for main-party and therefore accountability is jeopardized for coalition parties if not for that party. Some examples can be checked out:

Cash for vote - http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/05upavote1.htm
Telecom scam - http://www.indianexpress.com/news/this-is-a-mega-telecom-scam-cries-cpm/400884/
puppet-ism - http://www.dailypioneer.com/155718/Centre-told-us-to-save-Mulayam-CBI.html

In the current political landscape of India, in view of forthcoming general elections, the equations are coming down to impossibility of a single power. Whether it is UPA coalition or NDA coalition or third front(chances for third front look bleak, but nonetheless it has to be counted), the government is bound to be a multi-party coalition at center.

If the next government is dependent to an even greater extent on alliance partners than the UPA, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: ever-greater corruption and much-diminished[link]