Critical Mass, Reform Resistant and Patience Fatigue: Manipur on the eve of General Elections

Amar Yumnam *

Manipur has had in R.K. Joychandra Singh a fundamentally clean administrative leader. We have also had in W. Nipamacha Singh a performing political administrator. Yet Manipur has yet to experience a very efficient politician in the sense of leaving a lasting and sustainable culture of performance through the political-administrative functioning.

A successful leader is the one who delivers on promises and those deliverances render lasting value to the functioning of the social public. He is such a leader who creates an environment or a facilitating system where individuals derive their benefits from the shared context and not an environment where individuals thrive at the cost of the larger sections of the population. He is the leader who ensures a move towards equalization of opportunities for all, and endeavours to achieve a welfare environment of shared prosperity.

Unfortunately, in the lived democratic experience of Manipur since the middle of the last century, there has not been any indication that the people are going to have the fortune of working under such a leader. Is it because we have only returned persons of dubious characters as our representatives to the administrative and political leadership?

Well this does not seem to be so. There have been signs of clean, committed and reform oriented emerging from time to time. But they have always been very marginal and at best a majority of one or two. The dominant majority has always been of a different genre. This majority has never shown any commitment for reforms. Their overt pronouncements for reforms for social advancement have never been pursued to the full and always been covertly overshadowed by strategic manoeuvrings of the reforms, if any, for generating clientele for the next elections. Since this is the generalised approach of most, with the exception of one or two, of the political leaders, reform for progress has never been the main agenda and focus of administration.

The resultant social atmosphere has been one where the reform prospects have no significance for elections while established or prospective clientele relationships are the determining factors for winning elections. In other words, the politicians of Manipur have suffered from Reform Fatigue without ever attempting for reforms. This has been because the positively deviant group has never attained the critical mass to make any difference to the socio-political scenario of Manipur.

Now the next question is: How can such a type of leadership sustain their political life for so long on policy bluffs? Why is it that the people do not develop any kind of Patience Fatigue? One possible explanation for this could be that the people do not see in the horizon any alternative scenario emerging consequent upon any elections, and thus they see elections as nothing more than routine exercise. Since no significant transformation is unlikely to be thrown-up after the elections, one has either to join the clientele network or remain withdrawn from the process.

Unfortunately both of these approaches facilitate the thriving sustenance of the anti-reform politicians. This is a very stunting atmosphere for policy-oriented leaders to emerge. In fact, Manipur has by and large produced political leaders who are hesitant to commit to reforms. First, they do not understand what could be meant by reforms and so do not devote time to articulate on these.

Second, given their initial diffidence on understanding of reforms, they do not feel sure of any reform process yielding positive results if it is to be initiated. It is because of these reasons that Manipur has not had any contextual articulation of the issues plaguing Manipur by any of the political leaders, while they have been very prompt in jumping onto any project-based intervention from the Centre. So the atmosphere is one where reform is absent while clientelism flourishes.

Persistence of corruption is ensured and initiation of reform is stunted. It is in this context that we are going to have the next round of elections for the State Assembly. At the national level, the people have already shown their Patience Fatigue with non-performance by opting for a leader and a Party promising performance. So far, the commitment to reforms of the new regime is strongly visible, and it is unlikely that the Reform Fatigue might set in any time in the near future.

In Manipur, however, the ruling Party and leader of the last fifteen years do not display any sign of eagerness for pushing for reforms. All the acts and pronouncements only betray only a stronger commitment to the tried approach of client-building, not capacity-building of the people. There are encouragingly signs of emergence of Patience Fatigue in the desertion of the Party by two leaders committed to performance.

There are also strong signs of the people expectantly looking for an alternative administration after the General Elections. But unlike at the national level, the Party, which has given an alternative and reform-oriented governance at the national level after the last Parliamentary Elections, wears a not so healthy look in Manipur.

First, the organisation itself looks very weak. It does not show signs of vibrancy and coherence. The top hierarchy seems incapable of boosting the moral confidence of the own flock. It does not even articulate on reforms and does not display commitment to reforms.

Second, the Party seems increasingly populated by many reform-resistant groups. This is where the tragedy of Manipur lies today. The party in power has nothing new to offer or rather does not promise anything new. The potentially alternative party also wears a very weak organisational garb; there is no strong signal emerging that the reform assertion would be coupled in this province. Are we heading towards a coalition of the impossible and thus ensure the continuance of non-reform political leaders? 13/10/2016