By U D Tmar
As I was reading Patricia Mukhim’s article, “We voted for change: Now where did we lose change?” (ST June 14, 2019) the only thing that comes to mind is that it reiterated the point that we have been taken for a ride. As a matter of fact whichever party has won, has taken us for different rides. I agree with the article but I disagree with the term ‘we.’ Not all people voted for a single party. The ‘we’ here are the winners, who turn to losers once their representatives hold the seats of power (others might agree or disagree on this aggregation of conclusion). The dictum, ‘government by the people, for the people and of the people’ doesn’t apply anymore. Democracy is no longer the process when it comes to decisions making; if there is, it is only a façade. Democracy is now only a festival, manifest vibrantly during elections.
Democracy must be an everyday affair. It begins in classrooms, households, offices, localities, durbars et al. Democracy here is not about freedom, for this term has been loosely and subjectively understood. Democracy is about respect and responsibility; it is about providing a social, political and economic environment where all people without discrimination can grow and prosper, but not at the cost of his or her fellow citizens and most importantly the environment.
Demos Crisis or Systemic Failure
This failure of democracy is also the problem of the ‘demos.’ Citizens must also share the blame, but, when citizens are offered only candidates selected by a party (National or State), the possibility of having the right candidate diminishes. When money power comes into play, then and there the fate of the State is sealed. If a worthy and true democracy is to happen, the process of selection of candidates has to change. This demands a paradigm shift in the procedure of selections. If you take the constituency as a classroom, not only students who score good grades are the most intelligent or able; there are other students who are intelligent too and who are good at lateral thinking. Therefore, not all social workers, NGO workers, student leaders, businessmen etc., are the best options. There are also people who can do a far better job. We might also say, that experiences in dealing with the daily functions of society and other social issues have more weightage but in this modern world of governance and policy making and the enabling effect of technology, governance and administration has attained new meaning and enabled us to venture into the horizon where knowledge and information and the integration of data determines various optimality where society has to move. The convergence of economics, politics, history, culture, technology and the changing environment (human and natural) demands leaders with a broad- based understanding of various issues. Ideally (practically crucial), we need a person who has the ability and faculty to correlate things, set a vision and targets, a person who understands systems of interactions (ecological perspectives, crucial in the context of climate change), a person with an acumen to feel society (emotional intelligence) and more. Hence mere education or holding a degree is not enough, but dedication to work, ethics, aesthetics and humanity are the paramount objectives, if we have to have a democratic society based on respect and responsibility. Judging from the present trend of leaders, this is a far cry from reality. We are all in a situation, as defined by Herbert Spencer, ‘where the fittest survive,’ but in the present socio-political context, the term fittest can be equated with wealth or money, family and affinity. How this wealth/money is being accumulated is a different topic to be discussed.
Politics of Dynasties or Dynastic Politics:
In the context of dynastic politics, political parties are in some way dynasties but not in the truest sense of family dynasty. Somehow political parties are far better than family dynasties. In many ways political parties are a convergence of single interest(s); they are a family of interests. Parties will be better off if they practice internal democracy which will have a beneficial effect on society at large. Kong Patricia is correct when she said, we are ‘a feudal like society’, and it also seems that egalitarianism has gone out of the door in the present political arrangement and alignment. In the context of regional parties, egalitarianism is dead; infighting is the hallmark of regional parties, and since the time of Brington Buhai Lyngdoh (if my memory serves me right) there were efforts to unite the regional parties (Meghalaya Federation), but till date we are nowhere near achieving this objective. This conflict of interest is inherent in us; it’s part of our DNA (lah long doh, long snam). People call it a ‘curse’; this is a lazy analysis and perception. On careful judging we will find that individualism and egotism are to blame. Therefore as I see it, political parties are parties of mutual, individual interests, and they will serve the party as long their interests are being served. Society, community, people are not part of their scheme of things except prior to elections which are now equated to a ‘Festival’.
Election as a milestone or precursor to democracy is not a festival, nor a religion, nor a celebration. It is an occasion where citizens are bestowed the right to bring about not only governmental change but socio-economic changes including environmental changes. The rights of the citizen are paramount. The representatives must see to it that these rights of citizens (those who voted and those who did not vote) must not be forfeited, trampled or sold to the highest bidder.
A state or nation cannot progress without vision and policies, and policymaking is a technical task that demands sharp faculty and deeper understanding of issues at stake. In a democracy, policy making is also a participatory effort, where all people or stakeholders have a say and where cost-benefit analysis is done in line with the short term or long term goals. How many policies has our state legislated on or shelved? That’s a bigger question. When I browse the net, to look for state government policy on education, sports etc., all I see are draft versions. It begs the question, ‘Is our future a draft?’ Why is it so hard to have a proper policy? Public representatives are in government, first of all to frame policies and debate on them. Similarly, the duty of the opposition is to question, analyse and debate the policies threadbare. But most of the time what we read or see on TV are only pedestrianised debates. If we look at the government assembly archives during the time of JJM Nichols Roy we will see the language and the diplomacy with which debates happen. They are certainly of the highest standards compared to the present day. How do these past leaders of muster such intelligent oratory? That’s because at the core of their debate lies the sincerity, dedication towards governance and society. Even the debate/exchange of letters (this was in the year 1939) between Nongthymmai Durbar and the British government on the issue regarding the hygiene and sanitation of Nongthymmai, will make the present assembly discourse look childish.
Need of the Generation, not the Hour:
We might wish for leaders of great personality, integrity and dedication, but in the present socio-political structure and organisation, it is difficult to see this fructifying, until we overhaul the system, starting with the selection of candidates (bottom-up approach process). We will at least see some positive change. Whatever the situation, the present and the future demands that our representatives be practical and proactive. In the light of climate change and its overall non-discriminative impact on life (ecosystem, agriculture, diseases, water, air, rainfall, temperature etc), we are in dire-straits, and we have to act now because by 2050 we are altogether in a different life threatening situation and time is not on our side. Will politics be our saviour? It has and it hasn’t. But most of the time politics takes the first seat, not the people nor development nor environment. Aristotle associates politics with ‘practical science’ a social service. What we have here and everywhere is politics is first and foremost a ‘political service’, a service to achieve power by any means or mechanism, The only antidote towards this politics that puts people in the backyard is the Constitution and the Judiciary or again, paradoxically, the Elections.
To conclude on an elementary note, Development (loaded term) is a right of the people not a prerogative of a representative. Development is a societal need not a want, a representative is constitutionally bound to provide basic infrastructural necessities and amenities for the people. Development is not a gift of or from a public representative; it is an instrument of the State to sustain itself and its citizens for the long run and for sustainable development. The role of representatives is to see the fruits of development reach all sections of the people. Development is also about creating a social, economic, and political environment where people can thrive vibrantly. Ergo democracy runs hand in hand with development which is people centred. Alas, Democracy is also the social capital for the third industrial revolution. How far ahead have our leaders thought about this!
(The writer is Assistant Professor Dept. of Geography, St Mary’s College, Shillong)