Chingya Luithui
With the upcoming elections in Nagaland, a lot of space in the media is being devoted to the antics of political parties, candidates, and supporters. Unfortunately what we are not seeing is a clear articulation of goals and objectives of candidates which are necessary for the informed decision of voters. The truth is elections in Naga areas for a long time now has been determined by a number of factors that are external to democratic process such as the power of money, connection to armed groups, and tribal politics. We know that such state of affairs is not conducive for stable growth and development, nor for accountable political process or secure nation building.
Election is a small part of the democratic process; nevertheless, it is significant for its legitimation of the elected representatives and the decisions they make. Therefore, it is vital to understand what place election has in democracy, and how that relates to the kind of democracy we should be aspiring for.
Political philosophy informs us that the most ideal democracy would be one where everyone participates directly in decision-making, where consensus drives the process, and where decision-making is not encumbered by inefficiency. Such a system would ensure the consideration and inclusion of minority opinions in decision-making and thereby restricting and preventing the hazard of an individual or a dominant group hijacking the system for their gains, particularly at the expense of others. The Swiss model of government with its emphasis on referendums as a decision-making process, although not perfect, is a close example. Regrettably, most modern states do not have the political culture and tradition, ideal population numbers or sound economic foundation to make such a system work efficiently. India, figuring at 35th place in The Economist’s Democracy Index and categorized as a flawed democracy, is an obvious example. Its teeming population prodded by a crass majoritarian political culture makes such an exercise of direct consensus driven decision-making impossibility. Similarly, many modern democracies today are compromises and attempts toward reaching the ideal level of democratic governance.
One of the manners in which this compromise is played out in modern democracies is through election of representatives. The logic is that because the participation of every individual is either not logistically possible or will come in the way of efficient governance (a criticism of the Swiss referendum process is that quick and efficient decision-making is not possible), a smaller group of people or body is delegated with the power and authority to decide for the larger public; in other words, to govern. This small group of people or body cannot be arbitrarily chosen, but through a mechanism that expresses the consent of those who will be governed, the mechanism being the election process. Further, by being a candidate in an election, an individual is implying her or his willingness to be bound by the will of the people.
However, we need to remember that the transpiring of an election does not necessarily mean the existence of democracy. Not all elections are democratic, and not all elections result in a democratic government. The referendum and election of 2002 in Pakistan, which General Musharraf used to legitimize his presidency, was widely viewed as undemocratic chiefly because of the perception that it was not free and fair. Again, the 2005 electoral process in Zimbabwe, despite a lot of criticism, was certified to be “free and fair” by South African observers and former U. S. President Jimmy Carter but it did not result in a government that was sensitive to the democratic aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe.
The baseline for an election to be considered democratic is that it has to be free and fair. This implies a number of things. A free election is where there is a presence of fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to free expression by everyone including candidates, voters, political parties, and the media; right and freedom to receive information; right and freedom to assemble and form associations; right and freedom to vote without undue restrictions; right and freedom from coercion, threat, or violence etc. A fair election is where no undue advantage or bias exists for a candidate and includes equal treatment of candidates, voters, and political parties; equal opportunities to access financial and material resources; access for third-party observation; transparent voting process etc. The underlying point in all these is that every effort must be made to instill political maturity among voters so that the choice they make is informed.
Unfortunately, the system of representative democracy in India is just a theory struggling to project a façade of reality; in practice it is a majoritarian rule which does not have much space for freedom and fairness in elections. Review how elections are played out in different parts of India—they are always along divisive lines like caste, tribalism, class, regionalism, language etc, and all of them are marred by violence, intimidation, coercion, bribery, vote buying, rigging, booth capturing and every other dirty trick in the book.
And what about in Naga areas? Same things. These acts are happening right in our own backyard. Forget backyards, they are happening right in front of us! Despite the moral high horse we ride, despite our holier-than-thou claims to Christian teachings, despite our reliance on shaky grounds of long-gone sense of honor and dignity among our Naga ancestors, we are not so different after all from the mayangs or whatever other pejorative names we give them; we see similar events, similar despicable forms of divisive and corrupted campaigning among us. In our present day political environment, ideology, political principle, and the desire to work for the people are inconvenient yokes that have to be thrown out of our consciousness as soon as possible.
We should be afraid, very afraid of all these unwanted elements, especially as a nation that is struggling for self-determination. If we do not take the effort to change, it is an ever-sinking quagmire of political depravity that we are leaving as a legacy for future generations of Nagas.
The question then is: what do we want in our system of governance? There are quite a few things we need but for starters some semblance of transparency and accountability is clearly needed. They are at the top of my priority list because a lot of the present ills in the government (and by that I mean Naga nationalist governments as well) can be traced to their utter disregard for rules and codes of conduct. This is unsurprising because no one demands it of them. For instance corruption, a clearly discernible symptom of everything that is wrong with a system, has become entrenched among Nagas because no one questions how government officials and elected representatives perform in their offices. In fact, we directly and implicitly take part in it.
Transparency and accountability are not something extra that we should insert into democracy, they are an essential component of the very idea of democracy itself. However, we have done such a good job of bisecting them that when we talk of a democratic process such as an election, we do not hear anything about transparency and accountability. In the context of the coming elections, I am yet to read anything in the newspapers where candidates have talked of transparency and accountability or referred to them obliquely.
In the electoral politics of today, indifference and apathy among the general populace is the trend. We need to change this if we are ever to expect anything meaningful from our elected representatives or from the system. Put differently, if we want to experience meaningful democracy, we need to start participating in the process that defines it. Particularly, Naga youths need to start playing a more proactive role. Al Ngulie in his piece on Naga youths and politics (Morung Express, 22nd Oct., 2007) has already pointed out the apolitical nature of Naga youths. We need to change that, and start raising constructive criticism and concerns in a mature manner that befits our status as future torchbearers of the Naga aspiration.
Democracy, ultimately is not so much about who represents the people but how the government works. And how government works is to a large extent determined by the pressures and demands made on it by the governed.
(The writer is Human Rights Fellow, Columbia Law School, LLM Class of '08)
