By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
Synonymous to the anti-graft campaign of Anna Hazare we have a minuscule representation of the same vibrating in our very own state- the Clean Politics Campaign (CPC). Not that Hazare was unsuccessful in mobilizing the people of the state since many groups and individuals did come out openly to support Hazare and his team. Though the objectives vary to the extent of the demands, the premise of the CPC is completely a riff off the Hazare team. There have been, prior to the whole Hazare mania induced anti-corruption agenda, variants of demand and lobbying on clean politics in different parts of the globe such as the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics in America- an NGO operating since 2003 towards election integrity such as improving ballot access, instant run off voting etc. Spearheading a similar campaign is our very own maverick legislator Ardent Basaiawmoit leading from the front and asking all of us to share and follow his ideals. Never mind that the elections are knocking on our doorsteps- it does take a lot of insight to seize a burning issue and make it more relevant by riding on the already exposed sentiments of the people post Hazare. The campaign (which is neither a lobby group or a civil society initiative) may or may not yield the desired effects and one is not sure if this is a one time election gimmick which may prematurely die after the elections are over. I am convinced that the campaign even though it may possess a substantial timeline (till 2013 or even 14) may not achieve what it sets out to do.
History tells us that a popular non-violent movement is not self sustaining and even more difficult to perpetuate when the obstacles (institutions and actors) against which the movement is directed against are hand in glove – relentlessly opposing such a movement by resorting to ungamely and dubious strategies with money and muscle power being the most potent. The CPC is as ambiguous as it gets. Does it mean to tackle corruption in the elections or is it directed towards a tainted politician irrespective of the political affiliations, or is it about bringing more accountability during elections and after? What about the misuse of power by our representatives while in power? (read Ronnie W Lyngdoh).What does it propose to do with representatives and administrators who collude while in power? There are just so many questions. Of course these can be incorporated in the course of the movement (assuming it goes on for another 5 years) as and when it is suitable to do so in order to accelerate the cause of the event and thereby gain more public support and sympathy. But, any such movement, aimed at the administration and political class has proven to be a failure or incapable of sustaining the masses in the long run. The CPC going by the history of such mass dissensions in the state would also see the end sooner than expected.
It is no secret that elections in Meghalaya are becoming more expensive where only the well to do and the elite sections could afford to contest even though they may end up losing more than they actually gain (monetarily). Election in the country is definitely not clean; it is in fact the first step and entry to a lifetime of loot and debauchery. Recently the election Commissioner S Y Quraishi stated that elections and polls constitute the biggest source of corruption and that a vigilant electorate could mitigate this problem. However, while this is true from the official perspective it is certainly a far cry from the actual picture on the ground.
Assuming that politics is dirty and thereby implying that democracy has failed, one can only clean up politics if the democratic structure (pre-existing or modern) responds to such changes. The CPC may address the former but it requires more than a campaign to address the latter. Democracy is a victim of its own design. It does not qualify to state a clean election (which the CPC is aiming for) as foreboding clean politics. Not when the society is still held hostage to the menace of abject poverty and discrimination. The CPC therefore is not a panacea to the problems that are really pricking the society.
No one can talk of cleansing the system without insisting on the religion-state dichotomy which does not exist in our state. Many of our representatives hold prestigious/honorable position within their own denomination/sects. Church elders getting into the rough terrain of politics is not new and is in fact acceptable though this nexus constitutes an obstacle for cleaning the system. This only ensures that looted money gets circulated in the church and religious premises through donations and other charitable works. The CPC may have a hard time tackling this nexus- more so when one has to fight against one’s religious head and establishment. In our state the problem of infighting and lack of unity among various political parties is a glaring example of how democratic principles and ethos are sacrificed at the altar of greed and power. For one it ensures that intra democracy does not exist.
The CPC seems to focus on changing the behaviour of the electorate (which is highly volatile and unpredictable) while the most important issue of dealing with how the political parties conduct themselves in choosing candidates, utilization of political funds etc are something that requires more than a campaign for political redemption. None of the political parties have expressed support to the CPC (nor are they threatened) precisely because the former knows how to hit the bull’s eye (with the voters) when it is required to do so. The CPC is surely a drop in an ocean infested with sharks slippery to catch. But we hope that the goodwill only grows from here whilst embarking on a rough and formidable journey- to act as a catalyst for other groups and actors. The time to act is now.
(The author is a scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi)