I just briefly read your article or proposal with lots of comments which I cannot elaborate on all of them here but only a few of them:

My attention is on the ONE PERSON, ONE OFFICE, ONE JOB, ONE RESPONSIBILITY. this part of your proposal will face some roadblocks such as:

1) Governance activists and policy think-tanks are advocating for lean or limited government. your new proposal will likely result in big government which will in return result in huge finances that will make democracy very expensive.

2) U did mention that those who represent people should not run party and vice-visa. Woodrow Wilson of United States of America was a professor, originally not a politician but has made tremendous impact in public administration during his reign as a president of the United States. your proposal will shy away prominent and potential leaders who can make significant impact in politics.

3) Prime Minister is elected on party ticket but should not participate in party activities. This is interesting. How can they maintain their vision and ideologies through winning the next election? In theory it is possible but in practice it is far from reality.

I have more comments to make on your laudable ideas but time limitation is a major factor to this.

1]  I think you seem to have misunderstood my concept - one person one office one job. Here is my explanation. A representative should look after the needs of the people in the constituency where he is elected so that he can take the grievance or complaints regarding  the deficiency of services in health care, sanitation, water supply, education, roads, housing etc., to the notice of the assembly/ parliament and the government so that remedial action will be taken by the chief minister/minister. If the same representative will be made the chief minister/ minister of the State, apparently he would have no time to look after the people in the constituency  where he represents. Here the people's representatives should actually become the ears, eyes and mouth of the people of his constituency. But what is happening in India is a people representative is touring his constituency extensively, meeting people and giving a lot of promises during campaign period only. Once elections are over and he gets elected he visits his constituency seldom and doing his own business and his other occupations leaving the people in his constituency to their own peril. So I am suggesting that it should be made mandatory for the representative to attend the assembly/parliament and present in the constituency with 90% attendance. Failing the 90% attendance in one year he should be disqualified. 

2] My suggestion is that any individual or group of intellectuals or brilliant administrators who have ideas or modules can run political parties and if their party comes to power they can appoint able chief minister and ministers to implement their policies, programs and schemes through their chosen team of Government. If any Chief Minister/ministers fail to run the government honestly and efficiently according to their policies and programs they can change them at their will. Here is the government is the tool to carry forward their policies, model, ideas and schemes. What is happening in India is many political parties [except CPI, CPM, BJP] are run by individuals and their family. He is the president of the party, he is the representative of the people and he is the Chief minister. He runs the campaign for the party during the elections while leaving the governance to the grinding halt. If the party, the representation and the government is run by three different people the quality of governance will not be effected

3] Regarding the expenditure of the government I invented TOP TAX SYSTEM which will reduce the size of the government and expenditure to one third of the present system and at the same time the efficiency, honesty and transparency will be raised to so many times. Read the paper "Digital India - A model developed by Varma" The file has been attached

Thanks for your comments and I felt happy.  I am looking forward to more of these comments from you at regular intervals

VIJAYA KRUSHNA VARMA

Are you serious? You have not defined 'corruption' and your proposal to remove corruption at all levels and in all forms and to usher in 100% transparency (also not defined) seems totally unrealistic. Regardless of your definition of corruption, do you think it can be removed by 100% of participants? As for transparency, is some form of it appropriate--that is, are there some secrets that public or private institutions should not reveal?

From my understanding corruption is very broad and involves many aspects and types. Corruption includes nepotism, favouritism and racial discrimination which are difficult to eliminate. For your proposal to be effective, you have to trim your research and concentrate on one or two forms of corruption. Corruption becomes unhealthy when it becomes rampant and systemic, low levels of corruption have little effect to the economy. Then the issue of 100% elimination is just but a blue print, its a goal that cannot be attained whatsoever. What only is needed is to reduce it to manageable levels. Even raising penalties to corruption won"t solve, but will generate other national problems.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2520419

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2399560