Patricia Mukhim
The prefix ‘honest’ before the word politician is oxymoronic in today’s context. Yet it would be wrong to write off all politicians as being dishonest and corrupt. I am referring to two politicians in the present MDA Government who appear honest (going by their antecedents) but are caught in the predicament of being part of a government that is bereft of all ethical and moral force. Mr Lahkmen Rymbui in his avatar as Home Minister actually has a lot to answer for, for all the illegal mining and transportation that is carrying on in broad daylight. His name, literally translated means “being happy.” I am not so sure that he is happy being Home Minister because he does appear to have snippets of ethics tucked inside his conscience. But other than stepping down from the Home Portfolio he has no other moral shield to cover up the large scale illegality that is being facilitated by his Department – the Home Department – as far as mining and transportation of coal is concerned.
The other gentleman who seems rather simple and a man of few words is Kyrmen Shylla. Its hard to fathom what goes on in his mind but there must be a lot of churning going on. His name means “Hope,” and his parents must have nurtured hopes of him being the pillar of society – a man whose moral compass can never go wrong. Alas! He has a brother who owns a mine and he cannot but defend wrongdoing (illegal mining) because doing anything else would mean going against the family. We have yet to produce men and women that can stand their ground and not succumb to the pressures of clan, family and politics. Politics is a drug which once taken cannot be given up. The craving for power pushes people to violate every rule in the game so they can get to the finishing line by hook or crook.
Incidentally, both Kyrmen and Lahkmen are from the United Democratic Party (UDP) – a party that like the onion is needed by every dispensation to make up the magic figure to cook up a dish called ‘government’ in the state. Kyrmen Shylla as Minister for Social Welfare appears to be making the right moves, albeit he also created a stir by intruding into the hornet’s nest called lineage. It is his portfolio – Printing and Stationery and the transfer of a director who is a technical person and professionally qualified to hold the director’s post, and then posting a non-technical person in his place despite the High Court directive, which is problematic. So is Kyrmen Shylla honest? I leave it to readers to judge this young legislator.
So why do Lahkmen Rymbui and Kyrmen Shylla shut their hearts and minds to the still, small voice that tells them not to compromise on their principles because that would erode their credibility. But the question that follows is whether honest politics is possible? And what about the UDP? Does it have any moral guidelines for its legislators?
Jean Jacques Rousseau once said, “Those who desire to treat politics and morals separately will never understand anything of either.” The practice of politics not only can but must be reconciled with the imperatives of honesty. How do we define honesty or dishonesty in a politician? Is it possible for a politician to be honest at all?
This is a question that no politician would like to dwell upon. But what about the voters? Would they be ready to punish a corrupt politician? As is the case today, the voters in Meghalaya, barring a few in the city, all vote for money. A corrupt citizenry therefore cannot expect an honest politician. They have already sold their souls to the devil. But that’s a generalization. There is a substantial chunk of voters who vote on principles and also continue to hope that a capable, honest and efficient person will win and bring the desired changes in the constituency and the state. However, since the large chunk of voters have lost their moral scruples they also have no moral force to speak up against corruption. Hence we in Meghalaya continue to reap the harvest we do today.
Normally change comes when voters vote out politicians who are dishonest. But that change is impossible at least in Meghalaya because money is legal tender. A candidate without a few crores in his safe just cannot fight elections. So if the vitals of democracy – the elections – are already determined by money power can we say that we have democracy? The rule of law is the essence of democracy. But the rule of law is compromised when democracy is pulverized.
In Meghalaya we have a breed of political “gamblers,” who put competence to bad use. They are skilled but ruthless, lack humility and hardly every reflect on their actions. Coming close to the gambler is the political “troublemaker,” who pursues his soaring ambitions by any means necessary, whatever the risks and regardless of the cost to others. Then you have the political “fanatic” who is dishonest to the extent that he is blinded by the conviction that he is absolutely right in all cases (can we visualize this one?). The fanatic is inflexible and is like a steamroller ready to flatten everything in his way. Lest we forget there is also the political “wheeler-dealer.” This one is both dishonest and spineless and does not have any vision for the state. He is in politics to extract everything he can from it.
One is not trying to be moralistic here because that is utopian. Issuing futile appeals for moral revivals is also a misadventure. At the end of the day the politicians’ biographies will not read like the lives of the saints. But this does not mean that we cannot identify honest politicians when we see them. And the best definition for an honest politician is someone who regards politics as a tool for achieving the common good. He is not naive, and knows that patience, compromise, and small, incremental steps are needed to reach the goal. Yet in pursuing those small goals he will not lose sight of higher objectives.
An honest politician, in short, pursues a pragmatism built on principles, on the courage to say unpleasant things, but always with a constructive attitude. Indeed, irresponsible criticism – the eagerness to expose and publicize a problem, unmatched by the willingness to propose feasible solutions – is perhaps the most common form of dishonesty in politics. This is why actual governance is the best test of political honesty. It is how politicians while in government, actually govern and run the state; handle dissent and protests and implement the rule of law which proves their competence and honesty.
The toughest test of an honest politician comes when he or she must defend ideas that are unpopular but right. Joining the popular bandwagon just so the government survives is the worst form of dishonesty. Sadly, the actions of politicians today are fuelled purely by self interest. It is the dishonest politician who equates politics exclusively with popularity.
But to be a politician with morals requires a supportive ecosystem. The public has to support tough decisions taken in their interests. That sort of politician also requires to build a cohort that supports his initiative and ensures the common good. When one politician displays decency, his colleagues should support him. Not doing so is a signal that decency doesn’t pay. Political honesty is not the sole responsibility of politicians. We get the elected representative we deserve. The public must learn that fleecing a politician will turn him into a ruffian. After all, political honesty is more likely to take root in a society marked by a culture of tolerance, solidarity, and the equal enjoyment of individual rights. Such an ecosystem will root out political mischief-makers. And we know who they are!