Civil Society and Democracy: Absence of the Sovereign in Northeast India
- Part 1 -

Kakchingtabam Naresh Sharma *

Map of North East :: Pix - TSE

In a representative democracy, citizens' participation in electoral politics legitimates the sovereignty of the state. Citizens also engage with different institutions and organizations to influence and control the representative political institutions. These different institutions and organizations becomes the core of the space that lies outside the state, family and economy. Though given different meanings and definitions, the space has been conceptualized as "Civil Society". Historically, civil society emerged when individuals possessing the "natural right to life, liberty and estate come together, sign a contract" and constitute a common public authority.

And the common public authority guarantees these rights to its citizen through law. Protection of rights symbolizes the condition for the existence of a democratic space. For Hegel civil society was the "realm of instrumental relations between atomized and isolated individuals and is distinct from family and the state."

Here I am using the idea of "civil society" as the space of "organized life that is voluntary, self generating, self supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by the legal order or set of shared rules." Of late, civil society is being promoted by academicians, politicians, governments and aid donors as a medium for the consolidation of democracy.

India is no exception to this phenomenon. In the context of Northeast India, the regime which oversees democratic governance has a tinge of authoritarianism. This raises the question: Which form of institutions or organization is compatible with democracy? Do they contribute to the welfare of citizens in achieving the goals of social justice? And most importantly, does the civil society which is being promoted actually consolidate democracy or authoritarianism.

The paper shall engage these questions by
(i) locating the state of democratic governance in the region,
(ii) understanding civil society in the region in its functional elements and juxtaposing it against democratic ethos and,
(iii) by locating the "sovereign individual" between civil society and democratic institutional practices.

Liberal to illiberal democracy

It has been observed that democracy has been established with firm roots in India and has been consolidated over a period of time. Among the processes that have contributed to this phenomenon is the introduction of a successful federal system. The system has been able to accommodate some of the contentious ethnic/nationalist conflicts in India involving Tamil, Sikhs and Muslim Kashmiris.

This notion stems from the perspective that different nationalisms were resolved in the constituent assembly debate and by the reorganization of states on linguistic basis. The validity of such an observation is contestable in the light of the presence of plethora of issues in Northeast India that directly subvert the core ideas of democracy. I shall try to highlight these challenges to democracy in three broad areas.

First, nationalist struggles by the Nagas, Manipuris and Assamese have challenged the very foundation of democratic Indian polity. On one hand, the over decade-old negotiation between the Government of India (GoI) and Naga leaders has not been able to solve the issue of Naga nationalism.

On the other hand, Manipuris and Assamese nationalists have not agreed to get into a negotiation with the GoI if it is to be held under the framework of Indian constitution. The representatives of these nationalist struggles reject the constitution and argue that they were not a party to the original contract. Hence, there are claims and counter claims on the validity and finality of the constitution.

Second, related to the above, Indian political elites understand the issue purely from a perspective of law and order. Policy analysts argue that the issue can be dealt by "overhauling the security structure … greater deployment of security forces and by implementing emergency laws." For counter insurgency operation, a three-tier structure called the "Unified Command" was created in Assam in January, 1997.

Under the "operational group", para-military and police forces were kept under the operational command of the army. This leads to the creation of a state within the state where the axis of decision making resides in the Home Ministry of India and effectively shuts out the elected representatives of the state in the decision making process.

Further, counter-insurgency operations are conducted under the "The Armed Forces Special Power Act, 1958 (AFSPA)". Clause 6 of the Act "elevates the military arm of the executive above judicial and legislative scrutiny." The long term impact of undermining of constitutionally established institutions for a democratic order is underscored by Pratap Bhanu Mehta as "institutional forms matter in society because they are the only contrivances we have to mediate matters of truth".

He further comments, "otherwise the test of truth will simply be what any individual can declaim loudly." The subversion of constitutionally guaranteed principles by the state and enactment of acts like AFSPA are unconstitutional, undemocratic and also an act of "disguised war" by the Government of India. Through this Act, rights and liberties are suspended or abrogated. The Act further demoralizes the sovereign individuals and has broken the promise of democracy where the legitimacy of the government is based on the contract among the sovereign individuals.

Third, most part of Northeast India are characterized by ineffective, unaccountable and corrupt governments. The TII-CMS India Corruption Study 2007 and 2008 found that Assam and Nagaland have an alarming rate of corruption. The study described Meghalaya and Sikkim as very highly corrupt states, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur as highly corrupt states while Mizoram and Tripura were found to have moderate level of corruption.

Besides, the process of selection of beneficiaries for the public distribution system was perceived as corrupt by 43% of respondents. Interestingly, the survey also found that bribes are being given not to gain any personal benefits for unlawful activities but rather for services legally guaranteed to the citizens through the public institutions.

For example, respondents (36%) averred that bribes had to be paid for getting a bed in the hospital, and also for availing diagnostic service and for medicine. The same goes for getting a new electricity connection, rectifying a faulty meter (45%). People also have to give money for installation and maintenance of hand pumps, repair of water pipe and regularization of unauthorized connection (52%) and police are paid for filing a complaint and for issuing of character certificate (77%).

Further, perception of corruption and ineffectiveness of the grievance redressal mechanisms lead to distrust of the government formed by the transfer of rights through democratic elections. It "undermines the long established rule of liberal democracy that any individual that is affected by a decision should have an equal opportunity to affect the decision." Importantly, "democracy has not been able to eliminate the invisible powers of the executives that escape public accountability." This only leads to diminishing expectations from democracy.

Given the governments' transgressions against norms and spirit of democracy, the claim of successful consolidation of democracy in the country does not carry conviction.

Hereabout, the role of civil society becomes critical because democracy rest on the consent of the governed. It is critical also because intrinsically "civil society can perform the function of containing the powers of democratic governments by checking their potential abuses and violations of the law and subjecting them to public scrutiny." Further, they can "supplement the political parties in stimulating political efficacy and skills of democratic citizens, and promoting an appreciation of the obligations as well the rights of democratic citizenship."

The political elites, executives and the policy analysts respond to the crisis as a crisis of "lack of development." It is considered that "troubled by history and geo-politics, the North East has remained one of the most backward regions of the country" and economic development will inevitably lead to building of democracy fairly and quickly. "North Eastern Region: Vision 2020" document sings the same tune when it points to the ambitious vision of the people of the region to move out of backwardness.

Within these contexts, civil society is being promoted in the region as a necessity to "bridge the gap between expectations and performance by … fostering creative and collaborative partnership with civil society .... to induct people into the planning and implementation process in a participatory mode" "with institutional mechanism designed for modern development and service delivery."

(*This is an abridged version of a paper first published in Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 6, Issue 3, 2010.)

To be continued..