Along Longkumer
Consulting Editor
Elections are a universal experience leading to the selection of officials or leaders who act on behalf of the people. The system of election may differ but the outcome is the same—having elected leaders, whether it is a Pope, Chief Minister or a President. Different countries or communities have their own way of electing their governments or leaders. However most will agree on the need for a system which can guarantee a free, fair and peaceful selection of our representatives. The month of March 2013 has turned out to be significant if we look at the events leading to the election of new leaders around the world. On March 5, Chief Minister of Nagaland Neiphiu Rio was sworn in for a third consecutive term of office after emerging victorious in the just concluded Assembly Election. A few days later we were witnessed to two other events marking the election of the new Pope to head the Roman Catholic Church and the other was the formal leadership change in China where the new President and Prime Minister took over in what is described as a generational change of leadership within the Chinese political system. It may not be fair to draw comparison about how each of the above mentioned people got elected. However one thing that distinguishes Nagaland from the Chinese or the Roman Catholics is that in our case we have come to experiment with western induced democracy while the latter two continue to follow their own unique system, which is rooted in their time and tested tradition.
The Chief Minister during the ongoing Assembly Session may have described the just concluded elections as the most peaceful. Lives may not have been lost but like past elections, it has damaged human relations leading to bitterness, enmity, division etc. The wounds left will be difficult to heal. Whether in terms of statistics, it is peaceful or there is huge voter turnout, the bitter truth is that the prevailing practice of conducting election in Nagaland is disturbing. Can we change this? Enough has already been said about the vicious cycle of money power and corruption within the present system. All this was alien to the Naga way of life. In fact, the traditional Naga society has been democratic from the very beginning. However political parties and mass based democracy did not exist. Selection of members was done by general consensus. Even today selection and not election is the norm in many of our social set-ups and we can see the merit of this system. In contrast the present election system has created more division and quarrel within us.
We talk about the uniqueness of Naga history and also the superiority of our polity in the days gone by. If this is so, we need to perhaps find our own unique way of conducting elections and one that has its root in the genius and wisdom of our own way of life, yet forward looking and willing to adapt to new ways of doing things. The problem with the democracy that we practice today is that firstly, it has been superimposed on us and we have blindly imitated. Secondly the necessary conditions vital to the functioning of democracy has been largely absent in our case. The real weakness of our present political process is that an alien political system has been super imposed into a traditional set-up. What we have therefore is perverted democracy. Whether the future polity of the Nagas ought to adopt our own unique model of election is something that we need to contemplate. This will mean that we may have to look beyond the Clean Election Campaign initiated by the Church. We may need to change the prevailing system of election.
(Feedback can be send to consultingeditormex@gmail.com)
