Procedural democracy does not guarantee justice, nor does it create conditions that are necessary for peace. All it really cares about is statistics, and so long as the statistic reflects the desired outcome, it has manufactured consent. Unfortunately, statistics are just numbers and not about people’s aspirations. Statistics are unable to convey and articulate the values, needs and interests of what constitutes a people’s yearning. The question of statistics in procedural democracy needs to be further interrogated when sections of the people themselves feel that their actual position has been usurped by proxy, and hence, not represented in the scheme of statistics. If consent continues to be manufactured without people exercising their free will, statistics by itself will be co-opted into a framework that creates conditions for tyranny of the majority.
The recently concluded electoral process clearly indicates three broad interrelated and interconnected underlying concerns. The first focuses on the conceptual understanding of peace. The reduction of violence does not automatically lead to justice and liberty. Therefore, a peace that does not work to enduring justice is what some would call as, negative peace; and in the long term, a peace without justice is to suffer peacefully. This election, there was an overwhelming emphasis on reducing violence, but the same level of focus and energy was not given to ensuring a justice in the electoral process. The second, points to the presence of an alien confrontational electoral system of competitive party politics which is different from traditional consensus-based democracy. This existing approach is systematically institutionalized, thereby, eroding Naga values of governance and leadership, which is amply demonstrated by the present state of affairs. The third concern points to the societal behavior. The participation of a section of society willfully engaging in unfair means, either by choice or by default, puts into perspective the challenges that Nagas are encountering for democracy to be experienced and lived.
Worldwide, steps are continuously made to make distinctions between the prospects of democracy as a vision, and the mechanisms required for achieving them. Yet it must be said that the distinction between democracy as a fundamental right on one hand and as an instrumental and procedural right on the other hand has not been adequately distinguished due to cultural and contextual assumptions. The lack of distinction between these two faces of democracy has effectively negated the viability of democracy. In Nagaland state, democracy has been limited to an instrumental procedure, and, therefore, like in many other parts of the world, the confusion of democracy seems to lie in the problem that it is often presented as nothing more than a form of the State itself. This has been effectively reduced to occasional electoral poll with secret or not so secret ballots and multiple contending political parties. This reductionist application will only lead to a heightened level of fracturing within the society and a decrease in the level of quality governance and leadership.
In these pressing times, Nagas are required to rethink what democracy means for the Naga people. It would be unhealthy to think of democracy only as a set of institutional and structural arrangement. In fact, consistent with indigenous ethos of life, democracy needs to be perceived primarily, as an attitude, a cultural disposition that promotes tolerance, pluralism inclusion in which people are able to co-exist in right relationship with one another. This calls for personal transformation as well as the collective growth of the Naga society. Unless Nagas engage in some level of self-criticism, it is even more likely that democracy will be nothing more than an event.
