By Recordius Enmi Kharbani
The state Assembly election has taken centre-stage in Meghalaya for months and everyone whether optimistically or pessimistically or positively or negatively talks about it. The atmosphere is reasonable as the state will not experience such a state of affairs in the next five years unless a mid-term election has to be called on account of unanticipated grounds. The euphoria will end with the announcement of results on February 28 and citizens of the state will start their normal living. Those who voted for the winning candidate would have something to cheer about; others whose candidates lost will live with regrets. For still many other life will go on as usual. The election came and went and a lot of events, promises, analytical write ups, gossips etc., were published and many of these will not even be remembered.
The majority of the academic and journalistic observations have not been positive or optimistic about the present election and generally critical about the candidates, the election commission, and the political system itself. Here, a closer investigation at the voting pattern in the state and the basis on which the Meghalaya election stands is worth considering. Was it about issues and problems faced by the state and answers promised by political parties through their respective manifestoes, or other factors like money, muscle power, religion, race, kin relations, regional affiliations, popularity, etc. that dominated the polling choices of the electorates.
One of the critical arguments negating the present election is that the election is not issue-based. That election is not issue-based does not imply the non-existence of issues and problems and their non-appearance in party manifestoes and promises; in fact there are loads of them and correspondingly lots of solutions have been guaranteed by different political parties. Yet the claim is valid on account of considering the real motive behind every candidate in the race and on weighing the practical influence that issues bear on the election.
In a bid to garner peoples’ support, different parties had released their manifestoes prioritizing different issues, predictably in consonance with their rough and ambiguous ideological framework. Some of the outstanding problems facing Meghalaya are the boundary dispute with Assam, influx, protection of rights and cultures of the indigenous tribes, unemployment, atrocities against women, connectivity, town planning, overall human development, bureaucratic efficiency, work culture, rural development, mining especially uranium and coal, education, poverty, landlessness, widening rift between the rich and the poor, corruption, militancy, environment related issues, child labour, health services, assistance to the differently-abled persons, etc. Analysing all parties’ manifestoes, it is seen that none of the manifestoes singly offers inclusive and comprehensive solution to them, not to mention their practical realisation in the aftermath of the election. Priorities differ with some issues not covered in some parties’ manifestoes while featuring as top priorities in others. In the absence of a clearly defined ideological setting, parties contesting the state election can be clubbed based on these priorities and preferences given to issues into three categories: the national parties, the state parties and the Khasi- or Garo-centric parties.
Toeing the contour of the national trait with its centrist outlook and popularized aam aadmi mirage, the state Congress party in its manifesto has prioritized peculiar issues of easy going flagship-welfare related activities, apart from other issues contained in other manifestoes. It has offered to tackle poverty in the state, promising one lakh job opportunities in non-government sector, 10,000 new government jobs for the youth with special reference to women, one lakh affordable houses to the destitute, two LPG cylinders in addition to the nine provided by the central government at subsidized rates for each household, 100 percent reimbursement of fees for higher education of orphaned children, Rs. 15,000 wedding assistance to an orphan girl of marriageable age, etc. The party also has vowed to initiate a mechanism of social audit, a promise made by Dr. Mukul Sangma long before which is yet to be materialized. Being a national party, the Congress did not lay stress on issues pertaining to the specific indigenous communities of the state. A rough analysis shows that there are not many distinctive issues which are not mentioned in other manifestoes in the promises of BJP and other parties of national character. The NCP state unit on the other hand, seems to function autonomously or is weaned away from the mother party with national outlook with some of its prioritized issues coinciding with those of the state-centric parties like the promise to demand 10 per cent reservation in Central government jobs for youths from the state and also North-East seen in NPP manifesto.
Playing the major state parties with the intent to broadly accommodate the interests of different communities, UDP and NPP try to give a more universal depiction of themselves accommodating both ethno and regional-centric issues as well as issues of more general interest and these are given almost equal weight. These parties look to win peoples’ support by treading a safe side, combining issues of general interests like tackling corruption, introduction of an effective Lokayukta and others, as well as issues specifically relating to the indigenous people like promoting the rights, privileges, traditions and interests of the indigenous tribes, introduction of an effective mechanism to tackle illegal immigration, solution to boundary problems with Assam, etc.
The outright antithesis of all these manifestoes comes from the staunchly Khasi- and Garo centric parties: HSPDP, GNC and KHNAM. These parties have given utmost weight and priority to issues related specifically to the interests of the ethnic communities, besides others. Issues forefront to them are implementation of the much demanded Inner Line Permit to curb influx, bifurcating the present state boundary into Khasi and Garo states, solving inter-state boundaries with Assam and the international borders, to oppose uranium mining in the state, to safeguard the interest and cultures of the indigenous population, demand nullification of the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship within the jurisdiction of the state, bifurcation of Joint Assam-Meghalaya cadre of IAS, to strengthen the Land Transfer Act, codification of customary laws, to support the local traditional medicine practitioners, demand to include the Khasi language in the Eight Schedule of the Indian Constitution, to demand for a redefinition of the scheduled tribe list in the State in accordance with the Fifth Schedule and even re-christening Meghalaya to something that reflects the nature of the indigenous communities etc.
Other than these parties, there are 122 independents whose assurances are constituency-centric. Of course, that does not mean that political parties are not constituency-centric as well especially when it comes to canvassing. Some independent candidates have come up with innovative ideas and have become a force to be reckoned with. Many will definitely be elected which adds to the complexities of analysing the state electoral politics.
Ideally speaking, the variety of priorities posted before the electorates in the state might have tested and proved the nature of voting pattern. In case other factors do not play a bigger role than issues, the present election would have exposed the consensus of the majority’s choice for the future of the state. A mandate would have emerged whether majority of the people would prefer national parties with national outlook taking issues of more general interests, or the ethno-centric parties with concentration on ethno-centric issues, or state parties which entail a combination of both. Even though that clear mandate cannot be given to single parties except the Congress in view of the limited number of candidates being put up by those parties and considering their sporadic presence, a mandate of the like-minded parties would have reflected peoples’ preferences of issues.
The rift between the theoretical analysis and the practical affairs of the election however, remains an unsolved obscurity. It is a well-known truth that issues and promises have negligible influences on the choices and preferences of the voters. Other factors like use of money as reported, the prevalence of constituency-centric factors, the popularity of candidates, religion – division among Christian denominations, race, kin relations, and even muscle force, etc., play dominant roles. Manifestoes with host of promises play a minor role and their continuation have become almost a formality. As generally seen before the polling day, issues and problems were not the top priorities for canvassing but mutual attacks and counter-attacks between candidates took prominence. Thus, issues do and will not play a deciding role in Meghalaya’s electoral politics.
Now that the 13, 05, 439 have given their verdict, the outcome of the election and the subsequent formation of the government rests with the successful investors. The best that can happen to Meghalaya is if the Congress party can singly form the government as it has confidently promulgated. The next best option is the formation of a coalition government by the so-called ‘like-minded parties’. A coalition of parties which are the antithesis of each other like in the MUA government will not be healthy for the state and it will end up nowhere but in blame game. Hope the elected candidates will fare better.