Manipur News

A two part, op-ed article in The Telegraph, by Pratap Bhanu Mehta after a routine India-China cooperation summit in Beijing about a decade ago, contained some very absorbing argument on the sources of legitimacy for different forms of governments. We recall these articles again in the wake of the changes that have come to China and India in the span of the decade that has gone by. At about the time, the differences in economic advances between the two countries were not so stark. Today they are. The comparison between the two countries then, in this regard, was loaded with lessons. These lessons can very well be for Manipur too and hence this invitation for further reflection. Since The Telegraph is widely circulated in Manipur, most probably would have already read the original article. One of the chief contentions is that the governments of China and India by necessity draw their legitimacy differently and from different sources. Being a democracy, India puts a premium on representation. There is beauty in this but it nevertheless dilutes the question of accountability. It ensures participation of all different sections of the people in the governance process but this itself becomes the primary end justice, leaving the question of performance, the other vital functions of any government, as secondary. Consider this. The official answer to the charge that the Northeast occupies only a peripheral space in the Indian national consciousness and that this is evidence of its neglect, is that every one of the Northeastern states is represented in all the institutions of the Indian state, administrative as well as legislative, hence the question of neglect, or injustice, at least at the institutional level, does not arise. The fact that the Northeast still remains backward does not seem to be considered a factor in assessing the legitimacy of the government system. It is as if representation is all there is about justice.

In another arena, this logic has in recent times acquired a new hue in the continued growth of the demand for positive discrimination. The point again is, ensuring representation may be a necessary condition for the larger understanding of justice, but the questions remain – is it sufficient condition? On the smaller canvas of Manipur too, and we are sure all other states as well, the source of government legitimacy is drawn from similar logics and are invariably beset with the same flaws. Take the case of the hill-valley divide. Here too, as all of us know, the fierce contest for representation is at the crux of politics and is indeed treated as the only legitimate route to systemic as well as social justice. Every community wants as much handle in the government as possible and the equilibrium thus struck between the numerous pulls and pressures from these demands is what is believed would constitute a stable government. However, after this equilibrium is reached, the other important considerations of accountability and performance are somewhat pushed into the background and never discussed.

Again, here too, as in the case of the larger canvas of the Indian Union, the counter argument against discrimination charges by any community or region, is the proportion of representation. That the hills and valley districts have therefore seen representation in the democratic government somewhat in proportion to population, though today there are demands from Naga constituencies to reassess this proportion. They claim some constituencies in Naga districts are as large as 30,000 electorate while those in some others in the southern hills are only a few thousands only. The valley districts average between 15000 and 20,000, and are thus somewhere in between. Purely from a consideration of the logic of representation as justice, maybe there is much to this demand. However, must not government legitimacy also take into account performance? Question like why the hill districts lagged behind in development should then be made the onus for state leaders to answer credibly, regardless of whether she or he is from the hills or the valley. This latter question is where the China allusion comes in. In China, according to Mehta’s insightful observations, the challenges of legitimacy before the government are quite different. It leaders are nominated hence the only way they can win this legitimacy is through performance and accountability. Since they are nominated, they can also be removed by the appointing authority, unlike the elected leaders in India who often hide behind the claim of enjoying the “people’s mandate”. Because of this, the nature of their motivation and drive are radically different. This onerous expectation has even led China in recent times to treat Capitalism and Communism not as ideologies, but as instruments of development, to be administered in measured doses as per the developmental needs of the society. In our situation, this quest for legitimacy would be somewhat similar to that of a President’s Rule scenario when a nominated Governor runs the civil administration. He too must have to seek his legitimacy through performance and accountability alone. No state can know this better than Manipur. The Chinese system too has its flaws, but we have no doubt many will agree that there are lessons in it that can benefit our own outlook to what should constitute good governance.

Read more / Original news source: http://kanglaonline.com/2015/11/discourse-on-legitimacy/