Patricia Mukhim
It’s a tough call to change the big picture but some incremental changes are visible. The Chief Minister talks to people through social media. Hence he also gets feedback from the people. This is a welcome change from the days when government was just an echo chamber in the secretariat and heard its own voice and believed that things were honky dory. The dictionary says an echo chamber is a situation where certain ideas, beliefs or data points are reinforced through repetition of a closed system that does not allow for the free movement of alternative or competing ideas or concepts. The last thing we want is a government that feeds on an echo chamber. Having said that let’s get down to business. Let’s talk about what is keeping the state and its people at subsistence level and why is it that in Meghalaya today only a few are privileged? What are the wrong systems we are following, promoting and have been reinforcing for 46 years? In fact, if we care to look at statistics then we were better off when we started in 1972. At least we did not have landlessness then. There were not too many impoverished individuals living hand to mouth existence and our social systems were still supportive because the market had not yet entered and turned everything – land, forests, water sources, and now even human beings into purchasable commodities.
What are the institutions that Meghalaya has created in 46 years? Are they serving the purpose they were meant to? Have they become mere offices of profit for MLAs who are not ministers? The state creates institutions mainly to provide inclusive governance. At some juncture, these institutions might have been envisaged as means to reach out to people and deliver the public goods. But with time and with no attempt whatsoever to evaluate, assess and monitor these institutions, we have turned them into extractive models, rent seeking models. Now they are used only to serve a political purpose; not the public good. But this is a self-defeating exercise and if not corrected will lead to the collapse of the very state that created these institutions. In the book, ‘Why Nations Fail’ by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, (a must read for political executives and policy makers), the authors define extractive institutions as, “those that empower and enrich the few at the expense of the many.” Nothing can be truer in the case of Meghalaya. Let’s take a cursory look at the institutions created in Meghalaya. There is the Meghalaya State Planning Board, the Meghalaya Resource & Employment Generation Council, Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation, Meghalaya Social Forestry Board, Meghalaya Economic Development Council, Meghalaya Government Construction Corporation, Meghalaya Transport Corporation et al. There are many more but the above are enough examples of idle institutions that have guzzled money. Successive governments have used the above institutions as tools of appeasement. Sadly, the newbies who have just got first past the post system are adorning the above institutions with cabinet berths. It is unfortunate that the new kids on the block are such fast learners when it come to (mis)using the spoils of office even before they have completed a month of their victory marches.
It is time for this new Government with its promise of “Change,” to do a cost-benefit analysis of all institutions. We expect the new Chief Minister not to just toe the line of his predecessors but to have the courage of conviction to blaze new trails. Get some independent agency to do an incisive study into the investments made into all institutions and the outcomes they have generated over four decades. For instance what has the Planning Board done to provide a growth path for Meghalaya? How many new employment avenues has the Employment Generation Council created? Can the Secretariat handling the above two institutions give us facts and figures? And why have those in the Opposition (the UDP, HSPDP and Others) during several terms in the past not raised the above questions? Are they not in public interest? This is a classic case of honour among thieves! It would also be interesting to know how much money these institutions have used up in the last five years; how much travels have been supported for the Chairpersons and where they have travelled and what other perks they enjoyed. Have they infused dynamism into the institutions with new learning? After all this is a knowledge society we are living in and without knowledge we are brain dead!
The reality is that the above institutions have become stand alone monoliths that are neither inclusive nor have a vision to serve the people of Meghalaya especially those in the last rung of the economic ladder. Acemoglu and Robinson believe that economic institutions do not emerge by themselves but are outcomes of significant conflict between elites resisting economic growth and political change and those wishing to limit the economic and political power of existing elites. The authors propose creation of inclusive institutions but such institutions only emerge during critical junctures. In our case I hope the empty treasury that the new government is gifted with is critical enough to trigger change. Hence this is the time to break these monoliths that are well past their prime.
The continuation of such extractive institutions pulverises democracy because they create a class of self-seeking elite. In such regimes the rule of law is also compromised because pluralism is absent. Pluralism implies that the rule of law is applied equally to all; something that is not possible in what we in Meghalaya have – a partial democracy or an oligarchy at best. In fact. oligarchy is part of our DNA considering that the Syiemship only means that those from the Syiem clan are entitled to hold office. So too the Dorbar Raid with the title of Bakhraw (powerful) thrown in! The Khasis therefore are still unsuited to democracy which is why we have people worshipping leaders as demi-gods (Ki lei san snem). These demi-Gods are important at funerals and family celebrations; social feasting and also for doling out cash because they are patrons of families and their extended families.
Acemoglu and Robinson argue that participation in the political process can happen only when the rule of law is in force. And the rule of law means that money cannot play a role in determining election results. The Chief Election Commission is simply not equal to the task of taking on this depraved political system. In Meghalaya some people spent crores of rupees to defeat their opponents. So the institution of democracy was hugely compromised. The rule of law opens the door for greater participation in the political process. And participation does not mean mere casting of votes once in five years. It is a process of engaging with governance well after the voting is over. But how many of us participate in governance? How many actually write letters to MLAs and ministers on crucial areas of development or its absence? How many MLAs go back to their constituents and have a public hearing to listen to the voices of those who have fallen between the cracks. And why don’t we have that practice? It’s because we have not created such an institution. On the contrary we have institutionalised the Dorbar Shnong an oligarchic institution if there is one and MLAs only talk to the Dorbar executives and believe they have done their duty. The poor are not represented in the Dorbar and have no voice there. How then can MLAs and governments capture the voices of the poor and the landless?
It is imperative therefore for the present government, led by a dynamic youth leader to move from the beaten track and show us that he means business. Those ministers that do not share a vision of greater economic resurgence that will take people along the growth trajectory but are there to promote their personal businesses ought to be shown the door.
For starters the MDA Government should look at some startling statistics to tell it that something is very wrong with Meghalaya. The life expectancy for males in Meghalaya is 57.03 and for females 58.09. The all-India age expectancy is 62.6 and 64.2 respectively. 51% of working age women in Meghalaya and 31 % of working age men are anaemic. The all India figure is 53% and 22%. Institutional delivery in Meghalaya is only 51.4 as against the all -India average of 78.9 %. This last statistic means that large sections of child bearing women have no access to health care institutions. Statistics are not just dry facts; they tell us about the condition of real people. Will Government please call for the NFHS Survey 4 and look at the figures concerning Meghalaya, especially its maternal and infant mortality rates? Sadly the above monolithic institutions never look at figures. The members are there solely to enjoy the perks of office. Shame on them!