Editorial:
It is not rare to hear the outspoken in Sikkim and critics commenting from anonymity complain that ‘people’ do not react enough in Sikkim. They are right in their observation, but off the mark in being judgemental about it. Sikkim was a monarchy for 300 years, not the best of systems to cultivate an involved and critical people. Democracy finally rode in on the crest of a movement which played barely for five years in its final push; enough time maybe for an aspiration for free expression to evolve, perhaps not enough for the value or the process to sink in. Democracy requires its citizens to remain involved, critical and demanding for the institution to mature.
In Sikkim’s context, it was one thing to get the people involved in the process of demanding democracy, but unfair to then leave them on their own to figure it out. Every person aspires to be free and extracting an emotional response which brings them to the streets for short bursts of protests is the easy part, to convince them when the emotions have abated [and the realities of living returned] that they are free and empowered with equal rights, is where the challenge begins. Mindsets groomed on three centuries of feudal control cannot be shaken away just with the knowledge that democracy has arrived. That requires a longer process of confidence building, encouragement, perhaps even hand-holding and nurturing. That did not happen in Sikkim. It is also not enough to just tell the people that they are free and then expect them to start behaving like free and responsible citizens. People should have been egged to dissent and disagree because these were not reactions that would have come naturally to the Sikkimese even in the post-Merger days, but are emotional contributions necessary for a democracy to evolve. It is in this light that the frequent reiterations of the Chief Minister during his village-to-tour of the State are welcome. He has been consistently inviting the people to comment and evaluate projects and schemes underway in their areas and has often commented that he was more interested in complaints than praises. Representations made at some of the Sikkim Bhraman venues suggest that complaints are also being submitted. This is healthy.
While the reality of careful comment was always obvious in Sikkim, the administrative attitude which talks down to the people came home officially five years ago when the State Government formed the Advisory Committee on Human Development [ACHuDev] in 2006 and the Committee started work on understanding the realities of the grassroots. The first thing they noticed was the continued supremacy of the executive over the people’s representatives at the grassroots. Following the policy commitment to involve panchayats in development planning, more and more powers were devolved to the panchayati raj institutions. Government officials had never really been groomed as public servants in Sikkim and see themselves as privileged and superior to the aam janta and their rural representatives. This was manifested in the form of an embarrassment which should have scandalised any self-respecting democracy, but was notified and practised in Sikkim till five years ago - each gram Panchayat was attached to a district level officer called the ‘guardian officer’. The name itself is offensive and the Advisory Committee on Human Development, as one of its first advises to the State, suggested that this arrangement be removed arguing that in a democracy, no officer can be the “guardian of the people”. The gazette notification soon revoked the “Guardian Officer” arrangement. Gazette notifications cannot however effect mindset turnarounds, so while the GOs are gone, the attitudes which created and named it, still prevail. This embarrassment was not revoked because the Panchayats or the people were offended, but because members of the ACHuDev noticed and commented on the offensiveness of the concept. And that is why one hopes that the more direct approach being taken by the CM - to egg people to speak out and demand better - works. If real participatory democracy is to be institutionalized from the grassroots up, the government will have to proactively instigate the people to challenge, argue and demand. That will make people realize they have a voice and a role. It will inspire involvement. Then, the people will also become more pragmatic participants of the decision-making process. Then, maybe, Sikkim will start hearing the people more, as against the present situation where only the leaders, whether from the ruling or the pposition speak, and the people either echo or remain “passive recipients”...
It is not rare to hear the outspoken in Sikkim and critics commenting from anonymity complain that ‘people’ do not react enough in Sikkim. They are right in their observation, but off the mark in being judgemental about it. Sikkim was a monarchy for 300 years, not the best of systems to cultivate an involved and critical people. Democracy finally rode in on the crest of a movement which played barely for five years in its final push; enough time maybe for an aspiration for free expression to evolve, perhaps not enough for the value or the process to sink in. Democracy requires its citizens to remain involved, critical and demanding for the institution to mature.
In Sikkim’s context, it was one thing to get the people involved in the process of demanding democracy, but unfair to then leave them on their own to figure it out. Every person aspires to be free and extracting an emotional response which brings them to the streets for short bursts of protests is the easy part, to convince them when the emotions have abated [and the realities of living returned] that they are free and empowered with equal rights, is where the challenge begins. Mindsets groomed on three centuries of feudal control cannot be shaken away just with the knowledge that democracy has arrived. That requires a longer process of confidence building, encouragement, perhaps even hand-holding and nurturing. That did not happen in Sikkim. It is also not enough to just tell the people that they are free and then expect them to start behaving like free and responsible citizens. People should have been egged to dissent and disagree because these were not reactions that would have come naturally to the Sikkimese even in the post-Merger days, but are emotional contributions necessary for a democracy to evolve. It is in this light that the frequent reiterations of the Chief Minister during his village-to-tour of the State are welcome. He has been consistently inviting the people to comment and evaluate projects and schemes underway in their areas and has often commented that he was more interested in complaints than praises. Representations made at some of the Sikkim Bhraman venues suggest that complaints are also being submitted. This is healthy.
While the reality of careful comment was always obvious in Sikkim, the administrative attitude which talks down to the people came home officially five years ago when the State Government formed the Advisory Committee on Human Development [ACHuDev] in 2006 and the Committee started work on understanding the realities of the grassroots. The first thing they noticed was the continued supremacy of the executive over the people’s representatives at the grassroots. Following the policy commitment to involve panchayats in development planning, more and more powers were devolved to the panchayati raj institutions. Government officials had never really been groomed as public servants in Sikkim and see themselves as privileged and superior to the aam janta and their rural representatives. This was manifested in the form of an embarrassment which should have scandalised any self-respecting democracy, but was notified and practised in Sikkim till five years ago - each gram Panchayat was attached to a district level officer called the ‘guardian officer’. The name itself is offensive and the Advisory Committee on Human Development, as one of its first advises to the State, suggested that this arrangement be removed arguing that in a democracy, no officer can be the “guardian of the people”. The gazette notification soon revoked the “Guardian Officer” arrangement. Gazette notifications cannot however effect mindset turnarounds, so while the GOs are gone, the attitudes which created and named it, still prevail. This embarrassment was not revoked because the Panchayats or the people were offended, but because members of the ACHuDev noticed and commented on the offensiveness of the concept. And that is why one hopes that the more direct approach being taken by the CM - to egg people to speak out and demand better - works. If real participatory democracy is to be institutionalized from the grassroots up, the government will have to proactively instigate the people to challenge, argue and demand. That will make people realize they have a voice and a role. It will inspire involvement. Then, the people will also become more pragmatic participants of the decision-making process. Then, maybe, Sikkim will start hearing the people more, as against the present situation where only the leaders, whether from the ruling or the pposition speak, and the people either echo or remain “passive recipients”...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...