Civil Society and Democracy: Absence of the Sovereign in Northeast India
- Part 3 -

Kakchingtabam Naresh Sharma *

Map of North East :: Pix - TSE

Fourth, the path finders. Such organizations make an attempt to create channels for articulation, aggregation and representation of interests beyond the political parties. Besides the presence of ethnic nationalist struggle against New Delhi, there also exists a zone of conflict between communities at different layers in the region. The outcome of these conflicts is hegemonic and homogenizing claims over truth and absence of peace.

To counter these contesting claims some organizations such as Senior Citizen for Society (SCS), Manipur had "urged the government of India to initiate a process of political dialogue with the major insurgent groups operating in the state without any pre-condition to avoid further deterioration of the situation." Yet, there has not been a substantive response from the Government of India.

Likewise, People's Consultative Group (PCG) of Assam tried to initiate peace dialogue between the Government of India and United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). However, after holding 13 rounds of talks with the Government of India to prepare the groundwork for the start of a dialogue, PCG withdrew itself from the process. Reason for the failure was the insistence of the government to hold talks directly with the leaders of ULFA and the demand of ULFA to halt military operations while the PCG and Government of India were finalizing the terms of engagement.

As the Government of India's history of peace initiatives in the country shows, they enter into the dialogue process only when they are sure that they can dictate the terms and content of the dialogue. This is reflected in the words of the Indian Army Chief J.J. Singh, "the Army has been given an assignment to perform. If we can compel them to come to the negotiating table and abjure violence, the peace process and prosperity will come back in the region." Preference for military over democratic means reduces civil society to the role of pressure group. Albeit, they try to promote democracy by reducing the armed conflict, thereby secure the rights and freedom of the citizens.

Fifth, vigil organizations. These organizations take the role of vigilantes to achieve certain public goods in the society. They generally operate in small geographical areas, more specifically in the vicinity of their locality. Oganisations like Leikai Clubs, Meira Paibis, and Naga Mothers Association (NMA) engaged themselves with activities aimed at improving the quality of life in the community.

For example, Leikai Clubs engaged themselves in activities to ensure cleanliness, proper water and electricity supply, maintenance of library and act as a platform to discuss issues that affect the day-to-day activities of the locality. Meira Paibi and NMA are engaged in banning of liquor and other illegal drugs so that the society may lead a healthy life.

These organizations try to achieve certain levels of "social good" by collectively deciding what is good for the society. Such an active and vigorous form of civil society promotes democracy by involving themselves in collective decision making and setting the political agenda.

In their functioning, the organizations and institutions try to achieve common social or political good and to effectively check the unwarranted and irresponsible behavior of the state. Or, it can be said that they act as a stimuli in strengthening the democratic principles. Civil society initiatives to protect the rights of the citizens show the presence of democratic political practices which legitimates the government and the state system.

The Slippery Imagination

In a representative democracy, sovereignty is transferred from the people to the state and its rulers. Protecting the sovereignty is not only the responsibility of the democratic state but also that of the civil society. However, in their intoxication with the "brown men's burden" of civilizing the backward people, political elites and policy experts have defined and promoted civil society through an Act of the government. The Manipur Municipality Community Participation Bill, 2010 is a classic example.

It defines civil society as any non-government organization or association or persons, established, constituted, or registered under any law for the time being in force and working for social welfare, and includes any community based organization, professional institution and civic, health educational, social or cultural body or any trade or industrial organization and such other association or body as the state may decide.

This understanding of civil society is that any organizations or institutions shall abide by the constitution and follow the laws of the land. Their validity as a civil society and even their functions shall be decided by the government. And the functions ranges from "mobilizing voluntary labour and donation by way of goods or money for social welfare programe, to providing assistance in the implementation of developmental schemes and ensuring people's participation in the voluntary activities necessary for the successful implementation of the development activities."

But, imagining civil society as an implementing agency or agent of the state negates interaction between the citizens and organs of the government to ascertain the desire and needs of people in matters that have a direct bearing on their lives. While the instrumental conception of civil society might help in effecting the state's preferred outcomes, it also depoliticizes and bureaucratizes the civil society.

This has undermined "the expansion of social equity and liberty and … democratizing of state institutions". Unconsciously, those "agents of the state" have contributed in the consolidation of an authoritarian regime. By defining through an Act, the government has used civil society as a tool of the state for the production of labour in its relationship between the government and the individuals thus resulting in a new set of socio-economic relationship.

This is the art of governing by emphasizing on individual relationship with "wealth, resources, means of subsistence, the territory with its specific qualities, climate, irrigation …famine, epidemics and death, and so on" for 'the common good'. But, when the art of governing insist on securing "the common good", it marks the "end of sovereignty".

Because "end of sovereignty" refers to "state of affairs where all the subjects without exception obey the laws, accomplish the tasks expected of them, practice the trade to which they are assigned and respect the established order." Michel Foucault observed, "in actual sense the end of sovereignty is the exercise of sovereignty."

It is important to note the relationship between the laws that are "in operation" in the region and the organs of the government and the form of civil society that is being promoted. The operational existence of an executive state — manifested in laws operated under the command of an executive, the dwindling primacy of the legislature and the distortion of civil society into a bureaucratic institution — reinforces the principles of an authoritarian regime.

This has affirmed the argument that inhabitants of Northeast India are not citizens in its true sense; rather they are the "population" that needs to be controlled. This has delegitimized the freedom and rights of the citizens of Northeast as these issues were never treated as a crisis of democracy. This begs the question: Where does one locate the sovereign individual in the civil society for the functioning of a democratic state?

Conclusion

The model of democracy that exists in Northeast India (which I have termed an "illiberal democracy") seeks to control the people by denying the rights of a "sovereign individual". As has been pointed out above, the protection of rights symbolizes the condition for the existence of democratic state.

The question of protection arises because the democratic state is formed by the transfer of rights by sovereign individuals. So, democracy can only be consolidated when the government has the consent of the citizens. This consent is expressed through activities and involvement of sovereign individuals in the realm of engagement with the organs of the government and in shaping the political agenda through their collective decisions. The civil society that is being promoted in the region is about effectiveness in the delivery of services.

To make the claim of "consolidation of democracy" meaningful, one of the fundamental tenets of democracy — "the rights" — should be respected. This should be the primary criteria in the promotion of the civil society. Respecting such a principle will lead to political institutionalization.

Democratic citizenship can acquire its sheen only when the laws and institutional mechanism that is not in harmony with democratic ethos are discarded. Believing in the democratic ethos can produce a vibrant civil society where the "sovereign individual" experience rights to life, freedom and liberty.

The promotion of just one particular model of civil society and operationalization of undemocratic laws and institutional mechanisms in Northeast India would amount to saying "Obey, but argue as much as you want and about what you want".

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

Concluded..