By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The upcoming 2023 assembly election promises to be an intriguing affair. Although it hasn’t been smooth sailing (scams, alleged fake encounter, innumerable violations of the ban on coal mining, ethnic clashes, protest over CAA, and so on), the NPP is going into the upcoming elections with great conviction. This is mainly due to the fact that the main opposition party, the Congress has been decimated by defections and desertions. In its place AITMC (All India Trinamool Congress) is touting itself as an alternative. It has seasoned leaders like Mukul Sangma who was a two-time Chief Minister from the Congress. With voting in the State elections being more geared towards individuals rather than the party per se there is a strong chance that TMC could do very well in the upcoming elections. Whether it will be enough to win the seats needed to form the Government is another matter.
There is, therefore, a lot of churning that is happening in the political arena. As such, a perception has been created that a vacuum exists that can be filled with new people and new ideas. There is a belief among some that there is the genuine possibility of taking advantage of the eternal longing of change this time around. These are the individuals and groups that have entered the election fray promising real change if voted into power. However, such rhetoric is actually used by every political party before elections. For common voters like me how do we know we will get the change we desire? Who will actually live up to their word? Whom should we trust with our vote?
A couple of months ago I was at a public meeting called by one of the new groups who had decided to contest the 2023 Assembly elections. Ex-politicians, former administrators, professionals from various backgrounds, and academicians, among others, attended this meeting. The meeting was called to solicit ideas from those gathered for a vision and roadmap for the State. There were those who were supportive of the initiative while there were also those who were skeptical about it.
Among those that are skeptical there are again two categories. First there are those that think that initiative, i.e., contesting the upcoming election, though praiseworthy is doomed to failure. This included an ex-politician who cited his own example of how despite his best efforts he could not fight the system. Winning the election itself is going to be nearly impossible. But even if some of their candidates were to win they will not succeed in bringing any substantive change because of the entrenched systemic problems. In short, it’s an attempt doomed for failure. Secondly, others believed the group lacked specific policies that it wanted to implement. In other words, the group’s initiative was merely rhetoric lacking any substance, raising doubts about whether it really wanted to bring about the change that it claimed. The concerns raised by the skeptics therefore are that the group does not want to bring any change and even if it wants to it cannot bring any change. How does one deal with such naysayers? By analyzing whether the concerns are actually valid.
It is to be accepted that bringing about any systemic changes is indeed a difficult task. One only has to look at the best example for that in India – the caste system. There was a recent news report that as India was gearing up to celebrate its 75th anniversary of achieving independence from British rule, a nine-year-old Dalit boy from Rajasthan died after being beaten up for touching a drinking water pot. This is not an isolated incident. Caste-based discrimination continues to be a lived reality for many in the country despite practices like ‘untouchability’ having been abolished since the 1950s. In fact, frustrating though it might be to admit, it is not going to disappear very soon. However, this does not mean that the system has to continue in perpetuity. Such thinking ignores the fact that the system in which people find themselves is a social construct. Just like all constructs there is always the possibility for a re-imagination and re-creation based on fairness and justice. Not trying to change a malignant system is a luxury for those who benefit from the status quo. Change must happen and there is a greater chance of it happening when there is intent towards it. Fear of failure is not an excuse for not trying. It is an imperative.
The other concern, i.e., there is no intent is a more serious allegation. However those who raised this issue missed the point of the meeting: it was called specifically for that reason – to get suggestions for specific policies. In fact, many specific suggestions were given by others present, ranging from health, the prison system to education. This still does not fully allay the concern, which in my opinion was the real issue – the assumption that the group lacks expertise to understand the nuances of the policies and their implementation. This ignores the fact that expertise is not the problem, political conviction is. For example, the Tamil Nadu Government has appointed Jean Drèze, a noted Belgian-born Indian welfare economist, social scientist and activist as member of Economic Advisory Council to the Chief Minister. Members to this Council also include Esther Duflo (Nobel laureate), Raghuram Rajan (former Governor of Reserve Bank of India), Arvind Subramanian (former Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India). Hence, finding expertise to prepare specific policies and implement them is not difficult if there is a political will. This comes back to the external form of the concern (internal was the assumed lack of expertise) being raised, i.e., there is no intention to bring any change. How do we truly know that? Answer to this question will determine whether we will make the right decision with the vote. The answer is actually quite simple: Facta, Non Verba i.e., deeds, not words.
During elections every candidate promises that if they win, they will work for the betterment of the people. In other words if they have power they will bring about the change. Experience tells us, many a times, this does not happen. This is because doing something good does not depend on access to power but on the conviction and desire to fight for what is right especially when odds are stacked against one. To put it very simply, for me a right candidate would say “I worked for your benefit even when I had no power and I will continue working for you even when I will have no power”. Gaining power is just a medium but not the goal itself; the ultimate goal being making life better for the people. But that cannot happen if suddenly one realizes that they have to work for the public during elections and make a conditional promise, i.e., will work if election is won. That is a disaster waiting to happen.
For those that are running for re-elections the same principle applies but with a slight difference “what did you do when you were power?” Amnesia (memory loss) and the hope that people will change may compel people to vote for the wrong candidate again. For the latter, it is very important to remember an important facet of human life – people don’t change as long as not doing so does not harm their interest even if they know what they are doing is wrong. While people may harbour hopes of a non-performing candidate suddenly changing if given the chance again, I am sorry to inform them it will not happen. As for amnesia, it is a privilege many of us do not enjoy. If we suffer from it during the elections, we will be forgotten after the election is over.
Who should we choose during the 2023 elections? Do the new entrants, i.e., individuals and groups (like the one whose meeting I attended) have anything new and better to offer? And will they actually deliver? Or are they old wine in a new bottle? Those are questions that have to be answered by every individual themselves. It is a difficult choice no doubt. But what can help us in making that decision is to remember the adage: Facta, Non Verba. If we do that we will hopefully make the right choice.