There seems to be an ironic paradox in the way democracy is practiced in ‘Nagaland State.’ While steps have been taken to make distinctions between the prospects of democracy as a vision, and the mechanisms required for achieving them; 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. The lack of distinction between these two faces of democracy has affectively negated the viability of democracy. The application of democracy in Nagaland State has been severely limited to its component as an instrumental and procedural right.
In essence, the instrumental right to vote empowers a people to elect a government, and has been designed to enable a people to achieve its fundamental right of government and self-governance. Therefore, the instrumental right has been put in place to facilitate realizing and achieving the fundamental aspirations of democracy. The instrumental right and fundamental rights are re-enforcing and interdependent elements, which together secure democracy in its full form. However, applying democracy in its instrumental form alone does not embody democracy in its fullest form.
Ironically, in Nagaland State, the focus on democracy has been concentrated as an instrumental right, while neglecting the substantive form of democracy as a fundamental right. While much emphasis has been given around the instrumental right to elections, little or no regard has been shown on how the fundamental right is to be exercised. Consequently, the goals of democracy are usurped and quickly exploited by the arrogance of power to ensure that issues surrounding the fundamental rights of democracy are forgotten, until the next elections.
In this compromising and arrogant atmosphere, distinguishing between democracy as a means and democracy as a goal is even more relevant. This distinction is crucial to the Naga people’s ability to regain the values and principles of democracy in the functioning and structuring of its affairs. The Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui reminds us that “The most fundamental goals of democracy are probably four in number. Firstly, to make the rulers accountable and answerable for their actions and policies. Secondly to make the citizens effective participants in choosing those rulers and in regulating their actions. Thirdly, to make the society as open and the economy as transparent as possible; and fourthly to make the social order fundamentally just and equitable to the greatest number possible.” Subsequently, the four fundamental ends of democracy are accountable governments, actively participating citizens, open society and social justice.
In examining the ground realities, it is fair to say that democracy in Nagaland State have evolved into a paradoxical form, which has effectively negated the culture of indigenous democracy and egalitarian values. Nagas need to revisit the fundamental questions around democracy if prevailing instruments of the so-called democracy in Nagaland State are to be transformed into something more meaningful and purposeful for the people.
