Witoubou Newmai
The nub of the argument is thus: why have we allowed our vision to be complacently limited to the viewpoints of those for whom politics is all about wielding power? There is not an iota of doubt that there has been much derision, along with expressions of ‘concerns’, over how our politicians, masquerading as the truth, are most interested in consolidating authority. However, we are yet to identify whether these derision and expressions of ‘concerns’ are genuine public opinion. One thing is for sure: an absence of popular “collective will formation” has given undue advantage to politicians. We may also note that the more the politicians take advantage of their position to serve their interests, the wider the gap between the need of the situation/condition and the authorities.
Today, the inability of the Naga society to broach specific and broad requirements in a given space within which democratic ‘deliberations’ are carried out has brought about a great deal of concern. The prevailing situation in the State of Nagaland is one worthy case that can be cited.
The trending scenario indicates that there is a big gap between constituencies and their representatives/legislators. The people taking their resentment directly to the government instead of routing them through their respective representatives/legislators, amply shows how wide the gap is. This does not mean that there are no situations/circumstances where people cannot present their cases directly to the government.
Going by the views on social media, and also in traditional media, we can infer that there is no influence of constituencies and their people on their representatives/legislators. Or for that matter, we may put up a round-about question as to how many Naga legislators are enjoying the support of their constituencies in the present crisis? We may also ask how many constituencies are expressing their opinion (likes/dislikes) through their representatives? Who is to blame for the farce? Against this background, the nature and prospect of ‘deliberations’ need serious examination—people/constituencies ought to do urgent introspection as to where things have gone wrong.
In democracy, deliberations and procedures are bottom-up. When people are not happy with things around them they must go back to their respective constituencies/representatives to present their case instead of making attempts to address things through top-down procedures. It also appears that our society is yet to deliberate thoroughly on the “proper form and scope of political participation as to who should represent whom and on what basis or who should participate and in what way” (David Held).
In short, our society is not making use of available provisions. Perhaps, our ignorance or our inability to recognize the importance of Clean Election fully has also attributed to the trend. Resentment and frustration, as seen today, will continue to haunt Naga society if this area is not taken care of. This is also one of the basic bottom-up procedures of democratic ‘deliberations’. In extension, such exercises are also Clean Election campaign. How effective the Clean Election campaign is in Naga society is also about how well we deliberate on bottom-up procedures.
