By Batskhem Myrboh
Banshaikupar L. Mawlong
At the outset, we must congratulate and thank Dr. Mukul Sangma led MUA-II for paying much attention to the promises of the party as contained in its 2013 Assembly elections, and we must thank and congratulate the electorate of the state for having paid much attention to the parties’ manifestoes before casting their precious and valuable votes. The state is proud of this phenomenal achievement in the development of democracy in Meghalaya which is comparable to the British political system. All this while, I used to read literatures, had a belief and propagated the idea that election manifestoes of political parties are mere lip service and have no real significance. The voters rarely read them and even when they do so, hardly pay attention to them as the political parties hardly implement them after assuming power. But I am proved wrong.
The Election Commission of India from time to time raised their concern of undue influence of money power during elections. Scholars, thinkers and activists from time to time assert that money power and other negative forces associated with electoral politics have greatly undermined the quality of representation in the country. It is an undeniable fact that the unwanted and un-deserving representatives find place in the supreme democratic institutions: the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies, thereby downgrading the quality of these institutions. We need not elaborate on this; each one of us knows this fact very well. Again, Meghalaya stands tall in this aspect as our legislators were genuinely, rationally and democratically elected by the electorate and the Congress Party won the mandate of the people clearly. It is high time for the scholars and students of Indian political system to conduct a thorough research on the achievement registered by our state to defy the negative forces due to the intelligence and wisdom of the people.
Based on these crucial facts, Dr, Mukul Sangma, his cabinet and his party proudly proclaimed that the Congress has received the mandate to rule the state without any question and with disregard to the demands of the NGOs in the state and that the mandate includes the refusal to implement Inner Line Permit (ILP). It is a fact that the Congress in its manifesto though mentioned the necessity to regulate illegal migration, yet never promised for the implementation of the ILP. It is also a fact that the HSPDP and KHNAM, the two parties that fought elections with the promise to implement ILP did not get the mandate to form the government.
But are the assertions of the Government and the Congress tenable? Let us consider them with sagacity of mind and truthfulness without an element of hypocrisy. Many in the Government are aware, as they belong to the Christian faith, that hypocrites are the worst kind of people, and in the New Testament they received the strongest condemnation. Is it true that the electorate in the last Assembly election voted on the basis of party manifestoes? Is it true that money power never played a decisive role in the election? Is it true that that all those who voted for the Congress are against ILP? Is it correct for the Congress led MUA-II Government to claim that they got the real mandate of the people which enabled them to act in whatever manner they wish? I would like to remind the representatives that the electorate in Meghalaya hardly read the manifestoes. When they go to public meetings during elections, they hardly display any sagacity. It is, also the fact that the people participate in elections because they consider it as a festival that comes once every five years where they get free food, free bus ride, free alcohol and small tips. Given the scenario where the state experiences high degree of alcoholism, the influence of alcohol during elections cannot be ruled out. The electorate does not bother about wasting their time as they have low work culture.
Let me again remind here that Meghalaya registered a high voter turnout during elections partly because they lack the understanding of democratic values and knowledge except to vote, and that too on exchange with short term selfish and narrow gains. Many have a limited understanding of democratic elections. Even the so called highly educated ones believe that they have to vote because it is their duty to vote. They proudly vote because they consider themselves as responsible citizens of the country no matter what kind of candidates are in the fray. Therefore, who says election in India is democratic. Even in the 21st century, the democratic right of the conscious, educated and responsible voters who constitute the minority and who aspire to bring change through negative vote has been consistently denied. This category of voters is always forced to choose between the varieties of rotten products or accept the tag of being the irresponsible citizens. “None of the above option” is not given to them in the form of a secret ballot. For this group of voters, democracy in India is not different form dictatorship.
Coming back to the idea of mandate that the Congress led MUA-II Government receives through election; it is indisputable that it is a minority mandate. The people opposing the government are always in majority. The inherent problem lies in the kind of electoral system that we follow, i.e., the first past the post system. The limitation arising out of this system is further compounded by the operation of the multi-party system. Therefore, in true sense of the term, the present day government in Meghalaya (including India) is a limited democratic government. It is not only limited but this kind of indirect or representative democracy is always associated with the inherent danger of the representatives to function not for the interests of the community but for their own selfish and short term gains. It is precisely because of this that Rousseau refuses to accept the kind of democracy as practised in England, but introduced the concept of popular sovereignty. To plug in this gap, matured indirect democracy provides for the application of certain devices of direct democracy such as recall, initiative, referendum and plebiscite to make it more democratic. But these devices are yet to be adopted in India, meaning that democracy in the country is still very limited and yet to attain maturity. In such a scenario, it is important that the Government should not be arrogant in its attitude towards the NGOs. It should be noted that demands and interests of any democratic society are not necessarily reflected only through the political parties, but they also find articulation through the NGOs. Democracy is untenable to the monistic theory of sovereignty where the state exercises absolute, indivisible and inalienable sovereign power. But it is sad that the Government of Meghalaya is following this line with enthusiasm and conviction. Sovereignty in democracy is essentially pluralistically divided in society and has to be based on the people. Therefore, it is not only wrong but also dangerous on the part of the State Government to treat the NGOs as the anti-state, anti-government and disturbing groups. They are constituted by the constitutionally abiding citizens who have to resort to agitations because of the colonial mindset of the Government. If things are to run smoothly, the government should behave in a democratic, accountable and responsible manner reducing the scope of agitations to the most minimum limit. The creation of congenial atmosphere for the citizens to lead a contented life is the responsibility of the Government.
India has witnessed activism of different kinds including judicial activism. The judiciary, in order to enable the people to enjoy their democratic rights, has on many occasions entered into the realms of the legislature and the executive as these organs of government fail to carry out the mandate and expectations of the people. Similarly, the country witnessed activism of the civil society, without which God alone knows what will happen to the country. The more the neglect, inaction, lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of the Government, the higher is the level of the NGO activism. And this is healthy for democracy. Meghalaya is one of the states in India that has experienced hyper activity of NGOs of different persuasions.
When we sought the opinion of the college students though in a limited capacity, we find that vast majority of them extend support to the demand for the implementation of ILP. Incidentally, many of them include those who voted for the Congress Party in the last Assembly elections. Therefore, through this article, we demand from our Chief Minister and the Government to let the people decide for themselves on the issue. For that end, a plebiscite would be the best practicable solution to end this stalemate once and for all. A plebiscite would give the people the chance to vote directly on the issue. Arguments might be advanced that the people have given their verdict during the elections, as mentioned earlier but although people can make choices at general elections, these elections are usually fought on a number of issues and often no clear verdict on any one issue is delivered.
(Batskhem Myrboh and Banshaikupar L. Mawlong, Assistant Professors of Political Science, Synod College and Union Christian College respectively. They can be contacted at [email protected] & [email protected])