Jonas Yanthan, on January 17, 2017, in The Morung Express, the Eastern Mirror, and the Nagaland Post, had an article published titled, “Who is the Government: the people or the Ministers?”
In the article, he states in part, “We all know that our system of Government is Democracy. The definition of Democracy states that ‘It is a Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” In this form of Government, in whom does power lay; the elected members or the people? Power is always with the people. Elected members of such a Government … are known as ‘representatives’ of the people. Their prime duty is to listen to the voice and concerns of the people and deliver to the people and not push in their personal interests and agendas.”
Further on the author states, “...political parties can in no way be above the Tribal Bodies. Potitical Parties, Ministers and MLAs must always be subservient to the people they pledge to serve or be phased out.” He later mentions that there is a possibility of “Ministers and MLAs... be[ing] recalled” due to “misbehaviors” by them.
In the conclusion of the article, the author, based on the above principles, states, “in the best interest and desire of the people of Nagaland, … the Government [should] postpone the scheduled ULB elections to avoid unnecessary conflict and untoward incidents.”
The author is partially right and partially wrong about his view of the duties of the representatives of the people of Nagaland. Yes, the government is a democracy, but it is a type of a democracy called a “republic,” which is defined as , “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, page 1058.)
The key phrase in the immediately above definition is, “governing according to law.” The question is, what does “according to law” mean? The supreme law of India is the Indian Constitution, not the statutes of India, not the statutes of Nagaland, and certainly not customs and law of the Tribal Bodies of Nagaland.
If the Nagaland Assembly passes a statute that conforms to the state and national law, such as the statute that mandates elections for ULBs, with a 33% reservation for women, that is the law of Nagaland unless those who are against such law go to a court with jurisdiction over the Nagaland Assembly and have a judge overturn the law. The fact that the tribal community is against such a statute is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Despite the statements to the contrary by the author of this article that the MLAs are subservient to the tribal community and the people of Nagaland generally, this may be true in the fundamental sense that the people can vote out the Assembly members in the next election (in 2018) or try to recall certain members if the law allows such recall. But until that happens, the statutes of the Assembly are supreme within the state as long as they are not found to conflict with the Indian constitution and any superior statute (such as a national one).
If there is an allegation that the statute conflicts with an Indian constitutional amendment such as Article 371A, it is only a court with jurisdiction over the Nagaland Assembly which can determine that issue, not “the people.” Above all principles, even the one that makes the people supreme, is the principle that society must respect “the rule of law.”
Naga nationalists claim that Nagaland is occupied by the Indian government and army illegally, but until that issue is resolved (and I have claimed, in a number of articles, that when it is resolved it will be in favor of the GoI, with Nagaland remaining a state within India), Nagaland is within India and controlled by the Constitution of India and all statutes emanating from and under it.
In relation to the author’s implication that the Assembly members must always follow the wishes of the people, that is a whole other and separate topic. If a member was obliged to follow the wishes of the people only, and no other factors were to go into his or her decision, then all a member of the Assembly would have to do was take a referendum before each vote and follow the results. But the people don’t need Assembly representatives to do that; they could use computers.
Edmund Burke, the great 18th century British political philosopher and politician (he was an active member of the British parliament for many years) famously wrote on the subject of what the obligations of a representative are to his constituents, and his conclusions are, “One should trust in the common people to the extent that one should trust in the schemes of princes: both were fickle, self-interested, and sometimes self-destructive.” (“Empire & Revolution: THE POLITICAL LIFE OF EDMUND BURKE, by Richard Bourke, Princeton University Press, 2015, page 384.) The representative “was entrusted to debate on the basis of conscience, not reproduce the conclusions of ...[the voters].” (“Empire & Revolution..., page 385.)
If the people don’t trust the “conscience” of the representatives, they have a right to change them, and the right to elect ones whom they trust. Until that happens, or until corrupt representatives are recalled or prosecuted under the law, the representatives are empowered to pass the legislation that is legal under state and national law. Period.
Robert A. Silverstein.
He can be contacted at rsilverstein@nycap.rr.com
