Consider two opposite scenariobrihaspati wrote:I did not use the expression "future dictators". I said dictatorial, military commanders. All the examples I mentioned had obtained their military successes and rose to dictatorial status before they could or did implement their drafts of laws. Obviously, for drastic legal changes, that need not be "organic", dictatorial military powers are needed. But if you read carefully their bios, they indeed used their military powers and a very dictatorial though process to]almost singlehandedly draft laws and impose them. Caesar, Muhammad, Alfred, Peter I, and Napoleon all took a keen and personal interest in drafting laws and imposing them. Successful drafters who are alo forceful and having lasting impact or image as leaders, appear to be associated with a certain dictatorial and military mindset.
1. Say small number of people, 1 to n draft laws. But before enacting the law, they take explicit approval of commons.
2. Say a large number of people N, N >> n, draft laws. But this N is still 0.01% of the society. And after drafting, these 0.1% of people impose the law on commons without any approval from commons.
When Virgina Constitution was written in 1775, Jefferson demanded a referendum before enacting that Constitution. But his letter written from Washington reached 10 days after Constitution was already enacted. So his demand was not met. But his campaign that States should have referendum before Constitution comes into force had impact. Some four 4 states went from referendum before imposition of Constitution. And in one of the states, the voters rejected the proposed Constitution by 4:1 votes and so the Constitution had to be redrafted. Back then, Federal Govt was seen as UN like consortium and so Founding Fathers of US did not demand referendum to implement that.
In contrast, look at Nehru et al. Endless consultations with rich and powerful were held before our Magnum Opus Constitution was drafted. But Nehru refused to have referendum provision anywhere in Constitution. Nor did Nehru wasted time in seeking approval of us commons before imposing the Magnum Opus. And first thing he did after imposing Constitution was canceling JurySys, a tool by which citizens can express protest against Govt as well as laws in the Courts. So much for his democratic mindset.
My point is : One can be oligarchic or dictatorial while drafting, but democratic in enacting laws. While one can be democratic in a small circle in making drafts, but dictatorial in enacting laws.
IMO, we should focus on former ONLY. How does it matter whether drafts are written by 1 person of 100 persons? Drafts are like modern software - 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration and 1% originality and
99% copy. The laws always run into 1000s and 1000s of pages, and so it clear ab-initio that one person cannot write all this pages and will have delegated it. The important thing is whether laws were approved by commons before they were imposed, and did commons have ways to reject the laws if they later found that laws were created to serve only the rich and not the commons.
----
Now lets look at the problem of "Draftless leader vs Leaders with Drafts" problem from point of view of a non-80G-activist. I define non-80G-activist as some citizen of India who is willing to spend time and money to improve well being of India without expectation of any tax break, grants - he is welcome to expect votes in return.
Now question is should a non-80G-activist support a Draftless Leader/Organization or a leader or organization with drafts?
When citizens and activists vote and work for a leader, they are sacrificing their time, energy, money and so taking risk on life in some cases. Now a draftless leader is a peculiar character - he has all energy to give models but cant find time to write drafts nor can hire someone to write drafts. Where as leader with drafts does have model -- after all drafts are not borne without models. But he wishes to explain his model by citing drafts so that model is fully enumerated and not left to guesses.
The question is : why did Draftless Leader chose not hire draftsmen to draft out his model? And consider person like JP, who refused to give drafts of his recall, Lokniti etc laws for full 25 years when he was out of power and full 18 months when he was defacto in-power. Why such aversion to drafts? My challenge their motives and their integrity. They evaded the debates on drafts because they never ever wanted us commons to have those powers. They used these Lokniti to attract commons, just as one uses cheese to attract mice. Had they given drafts, they would have to actually make those laws when come in power. Drafts refuse the opportunity for the leader to backstab commons if he wins elections.
So IMO, an activist should only support a leader with draft and not a draftless leader as
1. It is very very likely that draftless leader is dishonest
2. The drafted leader is less likely to escape if he wins.
Narendraji will forever be under the burden of the fallout of the complete control of reconstruction and editing of Indian history in the hands of the Congress and the Left. But he divides, at least as claimed by his opponents - the Indic into the paltry minority Abrahamic and the overwhelming majority - of non-Abrahamic. Mayavatiji, on the other hand merrily subdivides the Indic not only into Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, but goes on dividing the majority non-Abrahamic into as many subdivisions as possible. Hers is the path of subdividing until every identity becomes a minority. That is the path of those among our ancestors who ossified the subdivisions of our society, preventing the pooling and optimum use of talent from all levels and corners in the interest of the nation, creating multiple pseudo-nations within the nation all distrusting each other and jostling for pre-eminence over all others. 
