Many readers would agree with the fact that any campaign and discourse on change would just be like ‘treating cancer with disprin’ if there are no real diagnosis on the untreatable social ailments that we now face. After all, the ailment has become so enmeshed for generations that, unfortunately, due to the lack of genuine reformers, the finer lines between the two sides of ethics and morality have become more blurred.
Even today, the existent dominant discourses from the preceding generations find more say and acceptance, however wrong it may be. For instance, one can still hear from seniors, boastfully talking about how they captured a polling station and rigged the votes. What about this guy who boastfully claim he had proxy-voted more than 7 times during the last elections and even during the elections before that.
Normally, the reactions from the youth of this generation who are eligible to vote for the first time, to those claims should provoke exclamations. But because of the public discourse where they are talked off as just ‘another normal election affair’, the new generation will degenerate fittingly into the shoes of the senior generations. And there lies one of the main diseases why we’ve not been able to modernize—because of strong dominant older discourses resistant to needed changes.
It is difficult to claim whether there has been any improvements in our democratic polity during the last fifty years. Partly it could be because of the strong village republic set-ups and dictats, but largely it is because there hasn’t been any movement from the past generations toward greater freedom of an individual’s democratic rights. After all, even in the traditional Naga village set-ups, there are flexible ways and scope to enhance greater democratic norms. For, can we not claim with an objective mindset how so many individual votes were being robbed off because of the absence of one-man one-vote? Can we not also claim how shameless were these individuals to give proxy votes? They would have done those ‘honourable’ deeds as ‘duty’ for the candidate, and so it got accepted in the older discourses or norms.
How blinded are we still to lurk, accept silently, unquestionably and let them still continue as we grow older and eventually take their batons to pass it to the junior generations!
To change an existent order would surely entail a lot of brave counter-voices and injecting among the masses the true definition and implications of a free and fair livelihood. This is essential because we’ve already been baptized in the old discourses. Do we not also notice the vice of dual briberies wherein we bribe as well as pray hard for the same small job?
At this juncture, there ought to be voices through many platforms both religious and secular that carry slogans and messages like: ‘buying votes is lowering your own dignity’; ‘selling your votes is like throwing off your voice’; ‘candidates are using blind youths for unfair practices; ‘choose legislatures who can really legislate for the betterment of all’…etc
When there is absence of fairness, ethical lines will turn hazier. There won’t be distinction between black and white.
This is not to condemn all the older values but as mentioned earlier, there would have been many virtuous individuals who were helpless but who were also hesitant to raise their voice. Such recurring predicament has been dragging on for decade after decades. But if we look at the reformation histories of different countries, they were not successful overnight. Right changes would entail a lot of eye-opening, sacrifices, movements and bold objective leaderships because these unwanted discourses have become institutionalized very deeply.
C.Imlimeren, Kohima
Imliba@gmail.com
