When Leadership Outruns Legitimacy
By Nidahun Marbaniang
In parliamentary democracies, the position of Leader of Opposition (LoP) is not a ceremonial designation — it is a constitutional institution meant to embody the voice of dissent, the conscience of the legislature, and a counterbalance to executive authority. Yet, in Meghalaya today, this institution stands compromised by political convenience and personal assertion.
Dr Mukul Sangma, a seven-time MLA and one of Meghalaya’s most experienced politicians, continues to occupy the chair of Leader of Opposition despite the Trinamool Congress (TMC) no longer meeting the minimum numerical requirement to justify such recognition. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, consistent with national norms, stipulate that a party must hold at least one-tenth of the total strength of the House — six members in a 60-member Assembly — to be formally recognised as the Opposition.
The 2023 elections, however, delivered a clear verdict. The people of Meghalaya withdrew their mandate from the TMC, reducing it to five MLAs from the 12 it held earlier. Despite this, Dr. Sangma continues to position himself as the state’s Opposition leader — a move that raises both constitutional and moral concerns.
A Question of Democratic Decorum
Dr Mukul Sangma is no stranger to governance or legislative nuance. Having served as Chief Minister (2010–2018) and Leader of Opposition (2018–2023), he understands the mechanics of power and the moral weight that accompanies it. That a leader of his experience persists in holding a post that his party no longer qualifies for is not a mere oversight — it is a conscious defiance of democratic decorum.
The logic is simple: if the TMC lacks the numbers, it cannot claim the institutional privilege of leading the Opposition. The Speaker’s office, too, must exercise its discretion with integrity, ensuring that rules are not bent to accommodate political symbolism at the cost of parliamentary fairness.
From People’s Verdict to Political Vanity
The 2023 electoral outcome was not just a statistical reduction for the TMC — it was a popular repudiation of its leadership strategy. Despite initial momentum after its formation in 2021, the party failed to sustain the public’s confidence across regions. In particular, its organisational weakness in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills — which Dr. Sangma himself recently admitted — underscores a deeper disconnect between leadership and grassroots mobilisation.
Leadership, however, demands introspection, not self-preservation. To continue clinging to the LoP chair, despite lacking the mandate, is to mistake personal visibility for public responsibility. It signals to the electorate that positions matter more than principles — a dangerous precedent in a democracy already burdened by cynicism.
The Larger Democratic Risk
At stake here is not merely a procedural quibble but the credibility of Meghalaya’s democratic institutions. The LoP’s office, like that of the Chief Minister, derives legitimacy from representation. When that legitimacy erodes, persistence becomes pretension.
Young people observing politics in Meghalaya — many of whom are disillusioned by patronage and personality-driven leadership — deserve a better example. They must see that leadership is about ethics before entitlement.
If procedural integrity is allowed to slide today, future assemblies may inherit a culture where rules are negotiable, and institutions become extensions of individual ambition. That is not the democracy Meghalaya’s founders envisioned.
A Call for Institutional Integrity
There are moments in political life when withdrawal, not assertion, strengthens one’s legacy. Dr. Mukul Sangma has the stature and experience to turn this moment into an act of democratic grace — by voluntarily stepping down and allowing the Assembly to uphold its own rules. Such a gesture would reaffirm that public office is a trust, not a trophy, and that leadership lies as much in letting go as in holding power.
The Speaker, too, bears a responsibility. Upholding the one-tenth rule is not a matter of partisanship but of institutional integrity. If the opposition strength falls below the threshold, the LoP position should remain vacant or be redefined through a collective opposition forum, ensuring plural representation without violating procedural norms.
Conclusion
Dr Mukul Sangma’s contributions to Meghalaya’s political journey are well documented. Yet, every legacy is ultimately tested not by the offices held, but by the principles upheld.
For Meghalaya’s democracy to mature, leaders must show that rule of law overrides rule of self. In stepping aside from a position no longer backed by mandate, Dr. Sangma could once again lead — not as the Leader of Opposition, but as a leader of principle.
