Liberal Democratic Party of Nagaland
Before presuming that election will happen, let us rationally confront the real problems in order to induct the variables if election is to happen before any kind of solution. A successful clean election is imperative and there should be no compromise on the ground, period. And since there has to be a substantiated base before any statement or suggestion, lest it is not at all – the following points are argued to ensure a clean poll.
1) No point in electing candidates who buys vote. 2) No practical law exists to realistically ensure clean poll. 3) A vague (narrow) moral obligation cannot harbor a destructive future.
For the first point, a simple math yields the result that if a candidate spends 100 Crore to buy off vote, he/she would only siphon back from the state to recuperate the investment. There is no point in there of risk in incurred by gambling, when it is clearly illegal and liable to penalty in democratic countries. To put it simply, “vote buying” means no development and no hope for progressive future.
There is no law to deter unclean election and as long as we enable unclean election, there would be no law. And even if empty promises are made to conduct clean election, based on our lifetime experience, we know that nothing is stopping those candidates from buying votes.
The third point “a vague (narrow) moral in the sense that some people argues, it would be immoral to take the money and not give vote, forgetting that it is immoral in the first place to buy votes and second to take it. But on this note, yes, the people should not take money but the question is, how much choice do the people have. The people are poor and although a few section of people may resist it and cast the vote on the right/clean candidate (which there wasn’t), the reality is, the majority who are downtrodden and less educated, tend to care less after having lost faith in the government, and who having assuming that there’ll be always the other people who would vote for the corrupt, gives in and the cycle repeats itself. But does the candidate have the choice to not buy votes? There is a choice for one if he/she is really looking for a change. One can opt to be a clean candidate and go about professing for change with his skill and charisma and this alone can win votes. But unless one merely seeks for a change, he would only opt for the latter.
So why aren’t our candidates opting to stand as a clean candidate, to be given chance to truly represent the people. Why do this bunch choose to buy? It is pertinent that they are all for amassing more money and power (also the party agenda has a hand in it too). We are not auctioning our votes to the highest bidder, but it is them who chooses to compete among themselves, and in doing so we damage our future for another five years. Thus, in order to save our future, we should cast the vote on clean candidates no matter whether some weaker section may succumb to their schemes or not. Also no one is asking them to buy votes. Hence it is once again reiterated to take the money and vote the clean candidates, considering the majority being poor and gullible. It any group, parties or individual has any objection towards this measure to envisage a future by electing accountable candidates, then we would hold responsible to contest these points in legal platform. If not, then may clean the candidates be voted only.
This society was established as a movement of the people to check irregularities in our entire state’s politics and represent the sensible voice of the people, to explore political realities so that our system would fall in the right place, and not as mere society. As of now, the members are not in zest to contest in the upcoming election (unless he/she is no longer a member) but based on reality conditions, would keep on promoting clean election and also encourage and assist even, the parties or individuals to uphold the commencement of a clean poll. We would be open in keeping ties with clean parties and individuals, to give-in logical advice and suggestion; share and incorporate systematic ideas on how to tackle and solve the grass root problems for development and progress.
An analysis on current nationalistic scenario raises concern over the uncertainty of contingencies. With many stakeholders involved and with the whole of people watching, the people wants and asks nothing more but to have a peaceful conclusive end and to grow forward. The people are observing and the present equations doesn’t seem to be falling into the right place but proximity towards repugnance – all that is asked of is shrinking. For the whole of it to grow out well, we need to comprehend each other and hold out our hands together, now that it is about to end someway or the other.
This is the 21st century and everyone is aware of their rights although sadly we haven’t had the privilege to put it into practice for multiple factors we know of, and as such, if there would be minuscule of distortions that need to be rectified: freedom of speech wouldn’t mean freedom of defamation; freedom of expression wouldn’t mean freedom of intolerance – which on legal premise the pursuit is not limited of course. The people have a say in democracy and the series of equations will ultimately be spoke by the people after having deliberated in one way or the other.
Another eventuality of anomaly that we are paying attention to in blur is the escalating velocity of the upcoming election. With some suggesting the postponement of election, while some enthusiastic over it, we need to seriously ponder over the development of ground realities and the repercussion and aftermath of the variables. The questions are: if we are to conclude any kind of political settlement with the GOI by early next year, and if the bolts and nuts of the present flawed of a system is to be rearranged, wouldn’t it be daunting to dispel the newly victorious government or having reformed its positions after the outmost expectation? Can any kind of settlement appease insurgency into mainstream? And if the election is commenced and the talks further gets dragged on, how much further will it take to resolve our political issue?
With all these and more questions swirling around our mind, the positive impacts could be for the people oriented legislators to bridge a good deal with all the NPGs and the GOI, or have a cohesive conclusion and start afresh. Call it sycophancy but unless we refrain from our misconceptions towards each other, as it is not of limelight but production, the deluge is significantly taxing and we may all fall victim to our own device; a melancholic narrative for all.
