o be relatable, if not always accessible, democratic governance needs not just ideals, plans and frameworks but also flesh-and-blood people mediating between the state and the grassroots. While the imperative holds everywhere, the need is particularly acute in developing countries with large populations, a culture of close personal ties and underdeveloped tools of mass communication. Candidates used to be to elections what the bride and the groom are to a wedding. Deservedly so, some people would argue.

However, overwhelming personal appeal or charisma always made some people apprehensive, none more than those running the non-representative state institutions, where trust in the lay man’s wisdom runs low. Checks and filters were thereforeintroduced to protect the voterslest they fall for the wrong kind and stick with them. Regulators and courts got to restrict the voters’ choices to the straight and narrow. The trend seems to have peaked and there is visible discomfort with it so that some of the restrictions might fall by the way side in not so distant a future.

After many a reform effort aimed at strengthening the democratic institutions, particularly the political parties, the centrality of the candidates has been somewhat eroded in urban populations. However, as principal mediators between parties and the electorate, their significance remains unchallenged. In rural and tribal setups, of course, nothing much has changed so that the figurative wedding still looks the same and the bride and the groom are still the bride and the groom.

The Special Report this week takes a look at the voters’ choices; the various kinds of candidates available to the parties;their strengths and weaknesses; their varied relationship with the parties on the one hand and the voters on the other; and how these interactions shape the national polity.