You have suggested that the term 'conscience' needs to be avoided. Conscience is universal and the common bond of humanity. By adopting conscience as the denominator we have an inclusive approach and nobody is left out. It is true that the vested interests, the criminals and the worst people on earth are thus given equal value by this perspective. Won't this defeat the very purpose of democracy? However on deeper understanding this will not be the case.

To take a simple example, let us take a family in which there are sons with diametrically opposite personalities. The good father perceiving the mis-match does not reject the bad guy. Instead he accepts him for whatever he is and gives him equal opportunities hoping that one day his negative aspects would disappear. This would be the correct approach and it is likely that the bad guy would in the course of time turn good. On the other hand if the bad guy is considered separate and treated differently, it would only worsen him and eventually ruin the family.

Similarly, though the people having the negative characteristics may cause more trouble than good by being considered as politically equal, eventually the system of equal opportunities would ensure that the moderates would make their voices heard and allow the system to reach a working equilibrium.

The reason why democracy in its present form has failed miserably is that under the party-based system of governance, people are divided on the base of their political characteristics. While division is needed to consider different points of views intelligently, it should not be the basis of day to day governance (just as the father can judge who is bad and who is good but does not use that division in actual life). It is conscience that binds everyone and using it as the basis allows integration.