Centuries old now-defunk political doctrine of Machiavellianism which is defined: "The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power" appears to be the core ideology of naga legislators to be specific and most politicians in general. This definition implies that in the arena of power the end justifies the means. Naga politics is essentially driven by this selfish doctrine at the moment.
Having said that, I am convinced beyond a doubt that none can repudiate the undeniable truth that " Ethics and morality must form a central position of any government" especially in a state like Nagaland whose geographical, historical, cultural and religious distinctiveness is irrefutable. And what better an ethics book to refer than the Bible whose ethical teachings are invincibly timeless.
If there is anything that will spark a spontaneous debate, if not an outright argument, it is an interlocution on whether "we can have political views outside the considerations of our Christian faith?" The answer is assuredly a NO. Christ must be the Lord of our political views. There is no such thing as total separation of church from state. Civil Governments should exercise caution because they are ordained by God to promote peace, justice, order and holistic wellbeing of the society. And to God will they be accountable. It is therefore supremely crucial that people elect God fearing individuals to be our representatives in the government. The continuing tempestuousness in the political system of our state is also the result of our (PEOPLE'S) folly. I am no moral law giver but allow me to be audacious enough to say that we have incessantly voted over and over again unethical, licentious, impious, banknote crazed, brazen-faced politicians who act with such depravity which also amuses me no end. Of course, i'm not being generalistic here. I believe there are ethical lawmakers in place, with unpleasant grimaces on their faces right now as I paint such unflattering portrait of their crafts and operations.
One such seasoned politician, who have earned himself immense admiration over the years is our honourable chief minister Dr.Shurhozelie Liezietsu. I am not a strong partisan to any political party but let me give an apologetic justification in case I harmed any of your political stances or choices. Popularly known among his peers as a man who stands true to his words and submitted to a disciplined prayerful life. Naturally, no human is perfect but those who have known him up close often recounts how emphasis on prayer, common good of nagas and political stability are the most favoured agendas on our chief minister's work list. He reiterates them well too often they say. Recently our chief minister was awarded, as a repercussion to his call for justice in an epic money laundering case in the Home department, with the concerned minister swooping loyalty to a dissident group, perhaps for fear of being convicted (God knows!). This circus is all too predictable, full of hilarity and enthralls us nagas no more.
You and I have a right to opinion and likewise everyone else has a right to ignore your opinion too. My opinion is this that the priority for the power holder should not be exclusively to keep the security of the power regardless of the morality of the means. True power requires modesty, empathy and ethics, not force and coercion. But what people want from leaders -social intelligence- is what is damaged by the experience of power. Human greed robs man of human emotion, also negatively affecting his cognitive aptitude in the long term. Recent example being our then chief minister Mr. T R zeliang who was hell bound, still is, on retaining his political position despite being overtly rejected and unfavoured by the people of Nagaland. T R zeliang's unabashed response and statement thereof pertaining to merciless killing of our naga brothers earlier this year left me aghast. His lack of moral indignation forcing the public to remind him of his moral obligations (which he dare resist) towards the people of our state lead to such avoidable, unsurmountable loss. A classic example of a man suffering from power psychosis. Please wake up from your dillusional dream, Mr.Zeliang. Nagas are never willing to co-operate with you, do not approve of your leadership nor are interested in your old gimmicks! Most of all, we want an ethical person who follows the precepts of a living God to lead our state not some obscure, inconspicuous, heathen worshipper for the same. A stinging satire, I agree but it is as it is. No biasness whatsoever.
Several Governors have often called upon themselves severe criticism – sometimes, bordering on condemnation for not being somewhat circumspect in their decisions. Examples abound. Notwithstanding the recommendations guiding the discharge of their functions in the Sarkaria Commission Report and the decisions of the Conference of Governors, many Governors continue to behave in a manner inconsistent with true spirit and ambition of the Constitution. While dealing with the conduct of then Governor of Meghalaya, the learned judge made similar observations -“the unflattering episode shows in unmistakable terms the Governor’s unnecessary anxiety to dismiss the Ministry and dissolve the Assembly and also his failure as a constitutional functionary to realize the binding, legal consequences of and give effect to the orders of the court”. BJP MP Subramanian Swamy has appealed to President Pranab Mukherjee to sack Governor Rao during the tamil nadu political crisis period saying “What kind of a governor leaves the state he is in charge of when it’s in the middle of such a crisis?". I want to ask our governor, you who remarked "HINDUSTAN IS FOR HINDUS",a year and a half ago the same, "What kind of a governor remains absent and oblivious to any crisis the state is enduring? And then makes colourful statements in favor/against a political group. What governor cannot distinguish between an internal political party crisis and a political subversion thus cajoling the head of the government for a floor test in an opposition-free government?"
A 2001 supreme court precedent holds that a state Governor should not always be swayed by "popular will" or the "brute" support a chief minister aspirant enjoys from his/her MLAs. It also said the constitution empowers the Governor, while appointing a chief minister, to use his discretion to ensure a stable government. Will not a wise, unbiased Governor appretiative of the law advise that this issue be solved within the concerned party themselves? Thus, avoid fueling an already flammable, incapacitated government. A constitution bench of the supreme court had held in the B. R kapur versus State of Tamil Nadu in 2001 that the constitution does not give elected members of a majority party unfettered right to elect an incompetent or disqualified person as chief minister. The contention that in all eventualities whatsoever the Governor is bound by the decision of the majority party is not a correct proposition. Kindly spare Nagas from further unnecessary mental distress!
"For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" When Paul wrote this, the godless Nero was the emperor. Religion, morality and knowledge are the substantive requirements of a good government. Period.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him Power.” --- Abraham Lincoln
Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts. Perhaps the fear of a loss of power.
