By Aristotle Lyngdoh
Election is over, but if one would conduct a survey and throw a simple query to the electorates as to why they have elected their candidate, the common remarks would be that he or she is a good person. This is followed by another common phrase such as “limited choice or lack of better personality”. These sort of remarks have been the refrain for many years in the state. And the saying that he or she is a good person is a vague notion with multiple interpretations best understood by the voter.
Nonetheless, there is a little bit of truth in these statements. The primary fact is that sincere and honest people who are fit to don the role of legislators are reluctant to come forward. The reason that prevents them is perhaps the attitude of the voters themselves and the fear of incurring huge expenses which is a stark reality and a cause of much concern during elections. Another factor that is also not surprising is that in the urban segment too people have elected their representatives very whimsically. Even the enlightened educated folk feel that the criteria to gauge a sitting MLA (candidate) is from the execution and utilization of MLA Scheme as it is commonly known. Suppose, there is no MLA Scheme what will be the utility of that person then? It is here that we have failed to understand that when we go to vote we are in the process of creating a government of our choice. But there is no consensus in this regard and as a result we have a fractured mandate.
Yes we have inherited a Westminster model of democracy but looking at the members who constitute the state legislature and have been elected with a marginal mandate, one sees a contradiction to what the model actually envisaged. Firstly, free and fair election has not been pursued by the electorate with enthusiasm. Secondly, healthy and open debates and contestations among the candidates is not encouraged or practiced at all. Thirdly, contesting candidates always fought and propagated their electoral issues in a stand-alone culture which also includes hidden strategies and many more. Whereas, in the Westminster model, ethos and good practices are gradually derived and nurtured from the quality and prudence of distinguished parliamentarians and lawmakers.
Further, let us not forget that the concept of Westminster primarily originated from the Magna Carta or an agreement signed between the King and the people in 1215. There are few prominent basic principles on this agreement such as (1) everyone is equal before the law and no one is above the law. (2) a person could only be punished if it was proven in a court of law that she /she has violated the law. (3) the Constitution is the result of pre-determined human rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to life. (4) the government rests upon the governed which is reinforced by the right to free and fair election. (5) The government as well as the governed are bound by laws. Therefore, a pertinent question to everyone is whether a person who was never involved in public life in some way or the other can win the election.
In a free and fair election, lawmakers or parliamentarians are elected not by virtue of being somebody or by using influential tactics to win voters but because of the weight of their personal and public stature. But as of now only crore-patis can contest election even if their intentions are suspect. It is very disappointing to see the spirit of the Westminster model being widely diluted. As evident from every election and the recent one, some representatives are elected because they have invested something in their constituencies, while others were elected because they are the off-springs of former MLAs/MPs. People’s blind affection and attachment to such candidates or any other should also not be the criteria in a free and fair election in a democracy. Otherwise we will demean the spirit of the rule of law. It is here that we have failed and the rule of law is affected and manipulated by those at the helm of affairs. A weak legislator obviously leaves a grey area where bureaucratic control and manipulation creeps in to suit their own convenience. And this is another cause of concern that creates lots of confrontations and hindrances which may also leads stagnation in the economy. The sad thing is that most of the electorate especially in rural have no idea about the Westminster model of democracy. Even at the national level too, people have elected their representatives strictly on a wave that can be created based on issues that arouse and instigate mass public emotion and sentiment.
Another flaw in the system is also a glaring reality that once a candidate is elected, he becomes a minister and is occupied with various administrative burdens including servicing the public (clients) And as a result, the role and function of a legislator becomes limited and curtailed unexpectedly. But in spite of that, they never lose sight or focus on how to roll out the MLA Scheme in their respective constituencies. On the other hand, if we calculate the proportion of time spent by each legislator for the sole intended role of legislation the time given is minimal. Therefore, In Meghalaya, the legislation process and practices have become poorer by the day. Members hardly participate proficiently on any issue while some of them never talk at all. And because of this, the administrative action and function becomes a monotonous affair. Once it becomes monotonous, the spirit and enthusiasm of pro-active involvement in good governance will gradually diminish. Thus, it is quite appropriate to say that they (MLAs) do not deserve to get any pension for just five years of service and five minutes of presentation and that too just for posting queries to the treasury bench. In fact proficient legislators update themselves through survey and research specifically on legislative matters and their applicability-cum-efficiency. But on the contrary, most of the Bills have become laws by virtue of being enacted on the basis of the strength of numbers of representatives of a particular party inside the house. This is nothing less than arbitrariness by depriving the process to solicit constructive and meaningful debate for the purpose of testing and ascertaining the logic of any Bill.
Should the legislature of the state continue and end without initiating new legislations as in the last tenure of the house? People of the state need good policies and laws in many potential sectors that are directly related with human and economic development. Our matrilineal society needs laws to strengthen its unique identity and tradition of maternal surname and title. Our inheritance system needs improvement and appropriate codification. Our education system needs complete rejuvenation followed by higher education provision. These are few of the forefront issues apart from employment, health, environment, etc. that urgently needs to be addressed in order to cater to the all round development of the state. Do our elected legislators have enough brains besides the MLA Scheme to build a society where the happiness index of the state and people is on the higher side?