Iraq and the fall-outs of it are going to have lasting implications on both policy and academic debates. Well, when one mentions Iraq, it now not only means the country but the happenings and debates generated by events surrounding it as well as according to the context one uses it.

This is how Iraq and Bush-Blair policy on her has transformed the world in a deep way affecting debates, academics, policy and social paradigms.

American Scenario:

I had the opportunity of listening to some of the campaign speeches in the recent elections to the American Congress. The issues raised in those campaigns and the outcome of the elections have established beyond doubt that the American citizens are now looking up, quite unusually, to the Congress for leadership rather than to the President.

This unfolding scenario is already a theme of active analysis with implications for the American democratic system, the social structure and the policy (both domestic and foreign) approaches. This is also accompanied by wide spread fear among political scientists here about the excessive centralization of powers and interventionist approaches under the incumbent president.

Quite unusually once gain, though Bush is only half-way in his second term, hectic campaigning for the next Presidency is already started. The likely contenders for the next presidential elections are now becoming increasingly clear. This is how Iraq is impacting on domestic developments in the United States.

In Academics:

In academics a serious introspection and review is now under way, particularly among Political Theorists and Development Economists. The uneasiness among political theorists is most noticeable among the political scientists in the United Kingdom. The shock on the economists is felt most among those who are actively engaged in exploring the cross-country differences in growth and based in the Unites States of America.

David Held, a professor of political science at the London School of Economics and Political Science, admits democracy is now “fundamentally challenged” both “as an idea and as a political reality”. He continues: “There is a marked risk that in Western Democracy a concern with security above all else will undo some of the important achievements of democracy and certain of the rights and liberties it presupposes”.

At a much more significant way, he writes: “While democratic theory has examined and debated at length the challenges to democracy from within the boundaries of the nation-state, it has not seriously questioned whether the nation-state itself can remain at the centre of democratic thought”.

John Dunn, a political theorist from Cambridge University, has also come out with a book on democracy which the Economists advises to reach for whenever anyone hears the word. Reviewing the recent global developments, including the invocation of democracy when “America and Britain set out to bury Baghdad in its own rubble”, he comes to the conclusion that democracy “in itself …does not specify any clear and definite structure of rule.

Even as an idea (let alone as a practical expedient) it wholly fails to ensure any regular and reassuring relation to just outcomes over any issue at all. As a structure of rule, within any actual society at any time, it makes it overwhelmingly probable that many particular outcomes will turn out flagrantly unjust. The idea of justice and the idea of democracy fit very precariously together”.

Well, while the British political theorists are reviewing their academic paradigm, the American development economists are doing theirs. Until very recently, political economics analyses of development were marked by widespread acceptance of two “truths”, the superiority of Britishers as colonialists over Spaniards and the better welfare approaches of American democracy than the extractive nature of Spanish colonizers. Now the foundations of both of these assumptions are being questioned and the search for a new paradigm of institutional analysis is under way.

Coming to Manipur:

The above are what have been happening in the West post 9/11 and under the impact of Iraq. Looking at these developments, the thought of Manipur naturally comes to mind, and particularly so as the “democratic elections” are just round the corner.

I have just read reports on the internet editions of newspapers that there would be no lathi-borne security personnel and instead every polling station would be manned by well-armed police and para-military personnel.

Well, this immediately makes me ponder as to what exactly is the kind of democracy we have and are going to have after the elections in Manipur.

Is it democracy under duress?
Would the ‘leaders’ elected under such compelling circumstances command any legitimacy after the elections?
If commanded fine, otherwise what?
Are elections and leaders being thrown up through these real steps towards addressing the problems of Manipur, given the prevailing circumstances?
Or are we just diverting the core issues of the State and delaying their solution?
If elections are not the solutions, what are then?
Are there ways of salvaging the elections?
Would elections alone constitute democracy?
If there are other components of democracy, what about those?

Well these are questions the people of Manipur, only the people of Manipur, have to answer with all seriousness and in right earnest.

** This article was written before the 9th Assembly Election 2007.