By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The biggest ‘dance of democracy’ is well on its way. It is an election fiesta spread across 43 days altogether. The Shillong and Tura seats are faced with the unpleasant prospect of being amongst the first to go to polls and thereby having to wait throughout to know their fates. Thus, with the schedule put to rest, the guns of manifestoes, perceptions, perspectives, arguments, opinions, views and counterviews are traded against one another and these are there for all to see. However, there is a caveat. It is called ‘money’. Elections in Meghalaya are no longer purely about wit and argument; about debate and dissent. The role of money power is ever increasing. In general, there is a viewpoint that ‘unless one has money and is willing to dish it out during the poll process, his/her chances are dismal’. In fact, this is what an election strategist (of most candidates) primarily does. It evaluates the influence of money and calculates a relationship between money and votes. Add to this, the potentially destructive role of social media through its quagmire of misinformation/manipulation/fake content/intentionally distorted UGC (user generated content), etc., and we have a dangerous cocktail of elements. To this end, we do need a mediating/intervening factor to bring some sense into it all. As such, the church stepping in and speaking up is a step in the right direction. However, what does this entail? Accordingly, I place the following pointers –
Firstly, let us contextualize social entrepreneurship. To begin with, ‘entrepreneurship’ as a field of study under management discipline is very old. It is synonymous with the famous traits of innovation, risk-taking and alertness. Notably, these traits are more in line with the economic well-being of self while gradually percolating into society. Here, economics is the pivot around which everything revolves. As a result of these limiting factors, a more recent area of interest which developed towards the latter half of the 20th century is ‘social’ entrepreneurship. However, it was not till the turn of the millennium that it received worldwide attention. The crux of the matter is that if entrepreneurship as we know is ‘predominantly economics’, social entrepreneurship focuses on transformation of a ‘holistic society’. As such, comes the era of the social entrepreneur who are defined as ‘change agents with a social mission for creating social value’ (Gregory Dees, 2001). These are people/organizations that thrive for social well-being through the mitigation of social issues/problems. The point to be noted here is that they too have the traits of innovation, risk-taking and alertness, but their orientation is totally social and for a societal cause. They are not-for-profit organizations with a social vision. Come to think of it, in this world of hunger, limits of shelter, health, proper education, etc; social entrepreneurs are the need of the hour.
Secondly, let me lay down a marker! The church is inherently and by ethos a spiritual organization. There can be no contestation to this point. However, in the context of sociology; it is also a social organization. It exists in society. It is a small part of a bigger social structure. That way it has a ‘major role’ to play in social transformation. One might argue, ‘a powerful role’. Moreover, the need of the hour is to do this ‘explicitly’. Speaking extensively on the ensuing MP elections is one indicator of such explicitness. As such, by doing so the church is ‘further playing’ the role of a ‘social entrepreneur’ (they have been into it through schools, colleges, hospitals, etc). It is trying to instill efforts of change with a mission to elect effective representatives. In fact, this persuasion was there even for the MLA and the very recent MDC elections. This is very apt in keeping with the increased role of money, power politics and intimidation at play. In addition, it is likely to have an impact on the social media electioneering positioning/discourse as well. It is true that there are many other domains in which the church can act as a social entrepreneur. Nonetheless, let us not discount this nascent start that has a potential to develop into something bigger.
Thirdly and in relation to the above, there is a need to guard against ‘activism’. That is a different ball game altogether. Activism is myopic and short-term only. There is lack of continuity and hence, ineffective. The church has to stick to its role as a social entrepreneur; with that comes a need to continuously engage for social transformation across domains for the foreseeable future. In this process, there will be genuine questions and meaningful debate. However, this does not mean the church should backtrack from its role of social change and social value. Contemporarily, numerous questions are raised; ranging from should the church have spoken up? Will that not influence voters? In fact, some say that it is downright undemocratic! Be that as it may, these inquiries must not dishearten the noble cause. On hindsight, these only help in reaffirming the efforts and thereby lead to repositioning and restructuring of the message to the masses. In reality, the real question for now is to what extent will the exhortation of the church resonate amongst the electorate? Will there be any impact? Only time will answer these questions. Moreover, keeping in perspective the enticement of money and how it has played a role in the recent past elections, we are in for a tough time indeed. Nonetheless, the social entrepreneurial effort should continue; after all, Rome was not built in a day!
Fourthly, I would like to draw attention to my earlier articles on this related matter (read ‘A reverend in politics’ dated ST 27th March and 29th March, 2014 and ‘Election 2018 and the business of giving fish’ dated ST 7th October, 2017). There is need to seriously revisit the ‘inherent’ nature of politics and the value of any electoral process. In the perception of the Greeks, ‘politics is good and for the benefit of a common people’. Somehow this messaging and understanding is missing for now. Moreover, money in elections is a fuzzy issue. In truth, election is more of a one-time investment for the candidates. If you win, there is no better investment. For the underprivileged (and for all who wish to partake), money offered by the candidates during the electoral process in indeed enticing. This is because they believe that ‘whether you elect A or B or any other’ their lives are not going to change. Hence, as it is just take whatever is on offer. As such the problem is two-fold. Importantly, this represents an opportunity for the church to work even further. The spark must now burn.
Lastly, the church is known to go into a shell of eerie silence after speaking up on issues. For many, its speaking is more of ‘a one-off’ and ‘few and far between’. It is time to change the trend and speak and act continuously. After all, that is what ‘social entrepreneurs’ do!
(The Author teaches at NEHU)