Dr Asangba Tzudir
With the Nagaland State Assembly Elections slated for 2023 around the corner, the chorus of the clean election ‘campaign’ is also getting louder. However, it continues to generate mixed feelings torn between optimism and pessimism. While optimism comes from the overwhelming chorus that cries for change, pessimism also sets in with the unfolding turn of events that only attests to the fact that the past ‘un-ethicalities’ are going to haunt us again.
As clean election ‘campaign’ continues to be spearheaded by the Church, and understandably so, it is in need of a re-look in consideration of the kind of responsibility. While the need for a clean election is a social concern, and as part of the social concern the Church continues to shoulder the responsibility.
However, the churches’ social concern should not simply be premised on the issues surrounding corruption during election, but should be built within the biblical teachings which will then get translated into a moral responsibility. That, the social concern is primarily about locating the ‘sins’ instead of focusing on the forms of corruption that happens during election. Bluntly put, in the pursuit of the sins, the ‘Church’ needs to clean its ‘premises’ first. The ‘dirt’ of the Church needs to be removed first before trying to clean other ‘social’ dirt.
Be it the clean election concern or the dirt within the Church, the premise still remains the same – retracing the biblical teachings and principles and based on which a moral framework needs to be built because it is morality that gives impetus to be responsible, and without which it will just be a failed social concern.
While it is understood that clean election is not just a responsibility of the Church, it is a social responsibility, and that it is not the responsibility of the church alone. This is where non-church organizations can join the force in expressing a more strengthened social concern for clean election to really make it effective.
While the Church can strengthen the ethical compass, the others need to deal with the aspects beginning with the ‘election guidelines’, where strict adherence tantamount to the success of clean election. The Church is not empowered to check proxy voting. It can only say that proxy voting is not right in the eye of God. As an observer pointed out, to say the least that, “the security personnel deployed at polling stations on polling day are not given specific orders to check voters ID etc. and take action against proxy voters while franchising their votes unless the competent authority gives an order to do so.”
Clean election is not a social responsibility of the Church alone but a collective responsibility is so desired where each other’s rights are respected, and that it is not ‘hijacked’ in any way during the entire electioneering process.
Within a collectivity, clean election is not a ‘right in itself’ but a ‘responsibility’ bound by duty and not simply an expression of a social concern. It is too big a responsibility to be left alone to the Church since it has its own limitations.
(Dr Asangba Tzudir contributes a weekly guest editorial to The Morung Express. Comments can be emailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
