Is India a successful democratic country?

Why does a country (like India) need politics? Why cannot the citizens of the democratic vote for someone from the bureaucrats to govern the nation?

• How is a politician different from a bureaucrat? Are they not both meant for the smooth governance of a democratic nation? I am raising the question as an after effect of the Durga Shakti case in which few of the Indian Politicians have suggested of uprooting the IAS officers (bureaucrats in general) altogether as they feel such bureaucratic officers are not needed. In a democracy why and how can the citizens decide to have a re-organisation of the administration ? We have such re-organisations in multi-national companies if they feel that there is excess staff or otherwise. In that case, why not have re-organisation for a country whose existing administration has given up before the power of the ill-fit for the purpose.

• Answer:

  My reading of this question is "why does a democratic republic (like India) need politicians?  Why can't a democratic republic function well by simply electing qualified bureaucrats or technicians rather than having these useless, narcissistic politicians constantly getting elected?". I think the reason may be a feature of popular choice, i.e. voting.  People only vote for candidates that they are aware of, and feel positively towards.  In order to know about them, and gain that positive feeling, candidates are forced to make themselves known and talk to people, often in ways that make those people feel good.  This campaigning rewards those that are good at influencing others, and who look good in front of crowds.  And, unfortunately, those people who are successful at presenting themselves and convincing others to vote for them are often those that are a bit self-possessed. Fortunately, many of those running for office aren't exclusively narcissistic fools bent simply on self-aggrandizement... many are also interested in genuinely making an impact on their society and their future.  So, while people casting their ballots can be fooled into electing useless idiots based on a promise and a clever slogan, they often also get fortunate in electing someone who, while probably self-obsessed, is also an intelligent, effective leader who makes a real difference in history.  Winston Churchill, for instance. Adopting a non-democratic process for selecting leaders probably isn't going to avoid the problem of self-obsessed idiots getting into power, however.  I don't believe North Korea would be a good model of avoiding this problem, for instance.  Some would say that Singapore would be a good model of quasi-democratic technocracy, but that only works if you agree with what the government is doing and you belong to the ethnic group in power - otherwise you better shut up and keep your opinions to yourself. Generally, I believe in the old saying: democracy is the worst possible form of government... except for all the others. I think the way to increase the likelihood of electing useful people into government is to improve the education of those casting votes, and insure the freedom of the press.  Having access to information, and the ability to understand it, is our best defense against useless preening idiots who talk well but can't govern to save their mothers.