Editorial: Only Citizens Can End Political Violence

In a democracy, politics is the weapon devised to replace violence as the medium of engagement – engaging not just the constituents, but also each other. Unfortunately, this remains a tool seldom deployed and political violence remains a frequent recourse. What the political players obviously blindside when they relapse to violence is that even though ‘politics’ might not be getting any cleaner in the country, the voters are growing more expressive in their thumbing down of violent tactics [as the election verdicts in Bihar and UP bear out]. The incident at Namthang on Sunday night was one of the larger violent confrontations between the Golay and SDF camps. Both sides will blame the other for having instigated the violence and both sides will have their believers among the lay audience, and even as their repartees continue, it can be safely said that no one in Sikkim is comfortable with political violence. This worry gets more acute in light of the fact that violence was the first worry in most people’s minds when dissidence broke in the SDF ranks as it began its fourth term in power.
Political violence is a direct fallout of the general perception, acceptance in fact, of ‘politics’ as being ‘dirty’, implying unfair means and exploitation. It is not necessarily so, but till such time that this perception prevails, political aspirations will continue to be mounted on muscle power. One must also bear in mind that political players usually stoop to violence when they cannot secure the desired results through the non-violent means of campaigning, lobbying or debating in the public domain. Also, since politics has been reduced to power, it tends to deviate towards violence more often than is healthy. It is also obvious that politicking tends to occupy leaders and supporters so completely that they can lose focus of the larger picture at times, and it is then that it becomes important for the people at large to pull the debate back on track. Politics should not be allowed to get reduced to a personality clash because that is when violence and intimidation become part of the process. The lay citizens, whose attention and patronage every politician seeks, should demand a debate of ideas and policies because that is when the leaders will need to directly engage them. This, in contrast to the politics of power in which case they can attract attention and convey popularity on the basis of crowds and muscle and lung power. None of these serves the interests of the people because in such cases, politics, when it is not being violent, is show-boating. On a more sinister note, its continuance perpetuates a nasty, vicious cycle leading political leaders and their immediate supporters to believe that the only answer to violence is greater violence. There can be no justification for violence and in episodes such as the one which transpired at Namthang on Sunday, there will always be as many versions as there are raconteurs. This is a headache best left to the police to work out, but for the people, this presents a chance to put their foot down and demand decorum.
The fact that neither side is admitting to having instigated the incident, and both are accusing the other of having drawn first blood, proves that [since both sides cannot be right] leaders are unsure of how the lay people will respond to news of political violence. The citizens need to play on this uncertainty and convey clearly that they will not endorse violence. They do this forcefully enough and soon the politicians will realise that they have been isolated to their islands of immediate supporters with the lay people, the numbers which make up the electorate, maintaining their distance. The moment this message goes out, so will violence from politics.