In today’s present world order democracy is a political system and construct whose legitimacy too often goes unquestioned. The rhetoric and rituals of democracy, as seen from the dominant worldview, have come to define the framework of what is acceptable and what is not. From its Greek root, ‘democracy’ means ‘the rule of the people.’ Hence, more democracy should necessarily imply more power to the people and more freedom. But does it? Over the last 100 years it can be said that democracy has gone from being a form of government to a way of life, but it is equally true to say that democracy, increasingly has come to represent nothing more than the process by which a government is formed.
Democracy has been reduced to a process of open elections, and in most cases, is synonymous with the State itself. This has given birth to the tension between democracy and freedom. The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, while describing Yugoslavia in 1990s, stated “suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists … that is the dilemma.” Indeed, it is a dilemma experienced in many parts of the world where the process of open elections have produced and re-elected governments that continue to deprive its citizens of their basic rights. In some places, elections have even paved the way for dictatorships. In such oppressive situations, the gap between democracy and liberty could not have been greater.
If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, it is called “democratic.” But in reality it needs to go beyond this minimal requirement for a country to be labeled democratic. A government produced by free and fair elections may turn out to be inefficient, corrupt, irresponsible, shortsighted, and even incapable of adopting policies required by the public. While such a government may be detrimental, this does not necessarily make them undemocratic. Democracy, therefore, cannot be considered as the one and only public virtue. Democracy as a process must be related to other public virtues that makes a shared humanity possible. If today’s scholars widely accept democracy as a process of selecting a government, it must ensure that such a process is inherently related to other public virtues such a justice, freedom and liberty.
Consequently, democracy as a process of free and fair elections cannot be left unrestricted. Fareed Zakaria says it is “by restricting our democracy, we enhance our freedom and calls for restoration of the balance between liberty and democracy.” It is imperative, therefore, for a truly democratic government to guarantee social, political, economic, cultural and religious rights which are contextually relevant and consistent within the broader ambits of universal rights. Democracy cannot just be limited to the procedures for selecting a government; it must reflect the goals of the government; and the approaches it takes in realizing them. Today it is even more relevant to question why democracy is flourishing; and liberty is not.
As people living in the world’s largest democracy, Nagas too need to critically question why liberty is not flourishing. We, the people, need to question why power controlled by a few continues to perpetuate the abuse of power, lack of transparency, accountability and participation. We, the people, need to be aware of how the electoral politics based on family, clan, and tribe is divisive and contradicts the foundation of participatory democracy. We, the people, need to resist the ‘powers that be’ that monopolizes their authority over employment and livelihood, thereby, perpetuating a relation of negative dependency that leads to conditions of passivity, submission and inaction.
Finally, the Nagas need to realize that without liberty, there is no democracy!
