The Anna factor

The Aruna's and Arundhati's at least have a POV, which adhere to the principles of our constitution leading to 'governance' and democracy. Anna's end goal is an ideal, which is spreading like a forest fire, but his approach reeks of anarchy... Maybe i'm harsh but 'my way or the highway' aren't Gandhian or democratic principles. Just goes to show, good men get buoyed by public support. JP turned the tables in a state of affairs where, Devkanth Baruah was famously quoted: 'Indira is India' with a muzzled media. If Anna can do a JP, i.e. do it within and by using the system, his effort is commendable. But this media created 'messiah' cannot undo a system in existence, it can though as i said earlier, start a forest fire which it cannot contain at will, let alone stop...

Unfortunately, as things stand, the UPA has loads to answer for... But so does every govt/party in power since '69. The Congress has been in power more than anyone else, and as with power, corruption has degenerated the feudal-family business into a money spinning yarn with stakeholders beyond control thanks to coalition govt's...

Unfortunately, (and i may be wrong in my understanding of the state of affairs, Anna wants the Jan Lokpal/Committee to have absolute power, which IMO undermines the intelligence of the aam janta, who have elected their representatives to the parliament.)

Undoubtedly we have been let down, but does 'Team Anna' deserve the right over and above these elected reps?

My question is, is this questions being asked everywhere by all? Or is it time for 'the' revolution' Anna & Co. want?; and give 'selected' and not 'elected' people unbridled/absolute power, and wait till they too become absolutely corrupt?

It reminds me of a movie i saw on the telly a few days back, a rather simple plot, with author backed roles. Here's the wikipedia entry of the movie, and here's what i'm constantly reminded of:

Simon Wilder: You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.
Proffesor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of the people is exactly what makes the Constitution incomplete and crude.
Simon Wilder: Crude? No, sir. Our "founding parents" were pompous, white, middle-aged farmers, but they were also great men. Because they knew one thing that all great men should know: that they didn't know everything. Sure, they'd make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them. The president is not an "elected king," no matter how many bombs he can drop. Because the "crude" Constitution doesn't trust him. He's just a bum, okay Mr. Pitkannan? He's just a bum.

Our founding fathers may not have been 'white' but they were pompous middle aged farmers and gentry, including the 'Father of the Constitution'. Almost all our founding fathers were educated abroad and belonged to well to do families. But they did the equivalent of what we do today (i.e Google it), they looked up existing democracies and constitutions and kept the door ajar. Always allowing for a loophole, an amendment, a foot in the door.

The way I look at it, Team Anna and supporters just want to steamroll the door/ barge in and gate crash!