For the people ?
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: October 26 2011 -

Democracy among all political system is considered by its proponents as the most representative form of government. "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people", so said Abraham Lincoln explaining the essence of this form of government.

It is taken as a given that since the representatives are chosen directly by the people themselves to represent their interest and aspirations for a fixed term, the representatives, be it the pradhan, the councilor, the MLA or the MP, is bound to translate these aspirations into action or else forfeits the chance to get re-elected.

In theory this would make them accountable to the people who elected them. The mechanism of the secret ballot also ensures that the choice of the electorate is made out of free will and the voter is shielded from enticement, threat or coercion of any nature, in theory.

Now how does it all work out on the ground? We are all too familiar with how candidates in the electoral fray, without exception, through their agents, workers, well-wishers go about trying to entice, entrap, threaten or coerce the voters. There is enough number of voters who are vulnerable to these pressures in this state as in other parts of the country.

Then there are considerations of kith and kin, of community, of relationships, associations and obligations. Over this the elite class mostly belonging to the upper middle class, in recent years have shown a tendency of staying away from voting - not for them the long wait in queues to cast their votes, which in any case is not going to affect them much whoever gets elected.

Consequently, it appears a large section of the population exercise their franchise under very trying conditions putting a question mark on the "free will" part of the choice.

Then again, even if the choice is presumed to be made out of free will, what are the choices available? The choice indeed is limited to the same set of people who have been in the fray all these years, who even though representing different parties, are not much different from one another.

They belong to the same class of people, represent the same set of interest groups and there is hardly any major ideological differences or divergence in programmes and policies of these people which are irreconcilable.

Precisely because of this, they can change their ideological positions and parties without much heart burns.

Though the 'Anti-Defection Law' has now put a stop to the practice of MLAs defecting en mass from one party to the other dictated by sheer opportunism as was the practiced earlier, there is a no stopping the prospective candidates from trying to get the 'ticket' of a party which is more favourably placed.

There are also new entrants in this electoral arena, but then who are these people?

They are also the same set of people who belong to the same class and who have reaped huge benefits from the system - mostly contractors and former high ranking government officials.

Then there are those new entrants who inherit the political legacy, though inheritance and democracy have nothing much in common, it is accepted all over the democracy practicing part of the world as the most natural thing.

The choice, one has to reiterate, is indeed limited. Whoever gets elected, whichever party holds the rein of governance, there is very little likelihood of any drastic change in the policies and programmes pursued.

In the name of the people, various projects and works will be taken up which will only fattened the already swelling pockets of the same set of people.

If at all benefits accrue to the general public out of these projects or programmes taken up, in most cases, it is purely incidental and not intended.

Successive governments have not been able to provide the most basic of needs to the people - essential food items (failure of PDS) , drinking water, electricity, roads, sanitation, access to medical care etc for decades now and the situation is only worsening.

What ever little has come their way, it has come as some sort of charity from benevolent rulers and not as their rightful entitlement. What would Arbraham Lincoln say if he were alive today?

Will he still say…. "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people…" ?