I intend to be philosophical here rather than ideological.
I mean, what choice do we really have when, to use a bad phrase, when we are stuck between a rock and a hard place (I could use a different analogy, but it would still be incorrect.)
If we really believe in the mud that one side hurls at the other side, I would think that both sides are equally just as bad. They are using language in public at each other which my mum would not allow to hear herself if I had to say them had I joined the "party." I think we are at the bottom of the pit, from all the mud at had been hurled. I won't be surprised if many of us have already switched off from the rhetoric.
I would imagine that this country is quite difficult to manage. After all, good is bad and bad is good. Anybody can think out of the box and get completely off tangent. When there is no reliance on logic and reasonable, we can simply be a bigot and still feel that we have the god-given right to utter absolute nonsense.
All of us what to start from scratch - by throwing the baby out with the bath water. We have thrown away what we had since the colonial times, and start from a new slate (I won't say clean). Now, someone proposes to come in and start with another clean slate. This is rootless revolution. I do not imagine anyone of us to be so wise as to able to reside in every "now-ness" with "nothing-ness."
Both sides subscribe to the same model; the only difference apparently is method or approach or modus operandi. This gives me the reservation. I would rather that both sides declare that they shall not engage in nepotism and if they are sons of ministers or elected representatives, they should involuntary step down and let others who do have such privileged backgrounds to stand up and give their contributions. (I shall not go further, as there are ingenious ways their fathers had argued why their sperms are better than my father's.)
I do agree with the view that says that probably the best option is the third option - the independent candidates - although they may not be of sufficient numbers to form the next government, but then we says it should always be about forming the next government. I like the argument that the job of the opposition (as a profession) is to be, as Socrates argued in his last days, according to Plato, is to be a horse fly which so irritates the horse that it keeps the horse awake. (But, of course, we know what happened to Socrates.) If we have to die, this is not a bad way to go off.
Really, the current fight is a fight for power, an intense fight for absolute power. If that is the final outcome, then we are all dead. The best compromise in a Hobsonian dilemma is to reduce both sides to their absolute margins that one is in no position to allow the other to be a dictator or, a tyrant. We had one too many in our recent history.
Neither side, from what I have gathered so far, really cares about this sovereignty of our nation, an abstract entity which we should cherish because it is so endearing as a concept - that we have this dear country of ours to die for. Most of us do that even without having to go to the front-line. We die in poverty, if not physically then spiritually. I suppose the best thing to do then is to rely on no-one, and sometimes not even ourselves. How sad, but probably how true!