Vaprumu Demo
DEMOCRACY has been beautifully defined by Abraham Lincoln as a “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. Precisely it means a government of a definite population of a defined territory, a type of government popularly chosen by the people and a responsible government which ensures the right to life, liberty and property of the people. In all these descriptions democracy is only identified with “the people” And yet the greatest of the three meanings of democracy is perhaps a “govt…for the people”. For the people who composed a defined territory and for the people who elect their own choice of government through the exercise of universal franchise. Going by this we can, in no way rephrase or enlarge the definition of Lincoln’s democracy as a “government of the other people, by the other people and for the other people”.
The ‘government’ and the ‘people’ referred here are not to be construed with the ‘other governments’ and the ‘other people’. By them we specifically mean the popularly elected government and the population who are inhabitant of the state. By ‘government’, we mean the state government which is democratically constituted by both the ruling and the opposition parties or members and by ‘people’, we mean both the voting and below voting-age citizens of the state. Nagaland state is comparatively a much smaller state but with higher composition of recognized scheduled tribes, other Nagas and non-Nagas permanently settled in the state. It is this people who constitute the state population and who elect their own choice of govt through the electoral process of democracy, evidently since the inception of statehood. It is then generally understood that it is the constitutional duty as well as moral responsibility of the democratically elected government to ensure the life, liberty and property of its citizens, first and foremost and not otherwise.
There was a time when formation of statehood was scoffed at as a sell out of the Nagas’ political right for a full fledged sovereign state and the signatories of the 16th Point Agreement as traitors and anti-Nagas. Every subsequent government elected by the people in the state was then branded as a puppet government of the Centre, categorically by the national workers. Where as every successive elected government was largely acclaimed as a popular government by the civil populace of the state. Whether a puppet or a popular government, the people at least expected the elected govt to safeguard the right to life, liberty and property of the citizens and also to bring about equitable prosperity and tranquility in the land. And yet no citizen was against solution or settlement of the turbulent Naga political issue. No citizen believed that election would compromise the right of the Nagas to self determine their destiny. Co-incidentally today we vividly observe the deep involvement of even several national workers in the process of democratic elections from the village to municipal to assembly to parliamentary levels and even in the NGOs. How true it is that sometimes, despite certain ideological conflict, human’s existence demands human’s approach.
The erstwhile popular slogan ‘solution, not election’ soon turned out to be a farce in so far as the involvement of the national workers in the state elections is to be accounted over the past few years. Today in reverse order we observe some factions advocating ‘election before solution’. Some factions have realized and are determined to install a govt or leadership of their choices with the sole intention to make it, what is called the best ‘facilitator’, in all the sense of the term. And how the state govt has proved these expectations of the factions over the years is an open secret to every one. Contrary to that of the past one may not find it surprising today, if one of the factions says this is a popular govt while the other factions say this is a puppet govt. What ever it may be, whether one likes it or not, state govt has become a reality and the people of the state certainly expect great things from it, which they otherwise might not have got it at all.
What then does the govt bring or is expected to bring? Govt symbolizes the custodian of people’s right, protector of life and liberty, provider of development, creator of employment, sustainer of peace, facilitator of unity etc. For whom? Basically for the people who give their mandate (despite various odds) for the formation and process of democratic institutions and not necessarily for those who stand against such establishment or have no involvement. State govt co-exists with state population and so is state fund, state employment, state development and state security. Notwithstanding this reality the benefit from every elected govt in the state has had accrued to almost every section of the Nagas irrespective of geographical barrier, tribal division or non-involvement in the state election or politics. Rather those who antagonized the formation of statehood, party politics and election might have had availed optimum benefit from the successive state govt in one or the other way more than those who actually patronized the politics of statehood. It is still alleged that substantial public fund is siphoned to facilitate the factions, employment given to their relatives or candidates and developmental works similarly allotted to them.
Not that the public are not getting anything from the govt. Few, apparently are getting perhaps, much more than they actually deserved. Where as more and more people are getting used to receiving belated public funds generously distributed at the time of elections and the period in between it the common people do not get or even expect to get a single dime from the govt. Even huge fund under NREGS, which is meant for every household in the rural areas for the weaker section is being illegally misappropriated by the ruling govt by way of VIP quota. Still then every year the common people are forced to sacrifice several hundreds to thousands of hard earned money to the other govts in the form of taxes, extortions, forced donations, deductions etc. The better off sections are not spared either. Pathetic are the poor because they are poor and the rich because they are rich.
Election comes and many (not all) voters turn into human vultures, politicians into pimps and political parties into feasting parties. Election is no more pre-or post- determined by ideology or issue as used to be. Now election is pre-dominantly identified with faction, money and muscle power – which faction is supporting, how much money is mobilized and whether booth capturing is arranged. You have one of these and you can win, you have none of these and your chance is nil. Now every one knows that election is not a plebiscite of the type of 1951 for a solution nor an attempt towards it. To conceive or deceive the people that election will pave the way for a solution is a tall claim and in fact quite contradictory to the demands of the factions. If election is a solution or part of it the factions would have surely join the state election long time back. Also to propagate that the state govt will readily step down in the event of honorable settlement reached is as subtle as a thing of beauty, specially in a faction torn society where the objective contrast, the approach conflict and the people confused. Election is neither a solution nor an obstruction to the solution. It simply promises development, employment, security and prosperity in the given political circumstance and the people actually need them.
Ours happen to be a ceaseless peace less society and under the prevailing lawless situation the people anxiously crave not simply for a stable govt but a sensible govt, which not only propagate development, because it does not accrue to every individual uniformly but more urgently sensitivity to the endangered life, liberty and property of the people which are inalienable to every human being. Because we have a socialist-factions dominated society it does not warrant a similar type of state, where materialism should prevail over humanism, or changes should come through conflict or power should come from the barrel of guns. Should we also relate our social existence in terms of random physical constructions or unclean currencies and cheques deposited in banks or crores of public money spent to purchase sale-able leaders or number of glamorous functions organized and attended as chief guest? Or, a reconciled and peaceful co-existence between brothers and communities. It sounds amusing but we want peace and yet we don’t want peace. In a Christian society what can be more pleasant than peace? No, not even sovereignty or integration or unification, which is all stained with a brother’s blood.
When a popular govt becomes a sub-organ of the other govts or a puppet govt of other forces it is the common people who perishes as they are sandwiched between conflicting powers. Loyalty of the public is claimed without any sense of reciprocal loyalty for the public welfare. A callous govt typifies a senseless father who endangers his own family by attending the others’ interest. Obviously for those few who are enjoying they say development is in full swing, for those who are not affected there are no law and order problem and for those who are surrounded by armed personnel there are peace and security in the land. But for those who are in power they have no command over the deteriorating situation, for those who are ruled they are subjected to the dictate of multiple govts and the perpetrators of inhuman crimes become untouchables. Everything licensed in the name of peace talk and negotiation. To which do the people owe allegiance – the elected govt or the other unelected govts? There is hell a lot of difference between a ‘giving govt’ and a ‘taking govt’, but democracy is exactly what Lincoln has said; ‘govt…for the people’- it means a giving govt. Humanly speaking it means a caring govt. The people gave their popular mandate in order to have a giving and a caring govt and certainly not a taking govt. Finally for those who think beyond election the big question may be one of the two-‘Election or Negotiation?’ because both have proved to be a bad mixer and harmful to the people.
When a popularly elected govt can no longer stand on its own feet or protect the interest of its citizens the people naturally get demoralized and search for change. Change of the system and leadership. It naturally comes sooner than later.
