Democracy in Sikkim - the Antithesis

Way back in the seventies of the last century, when plotters were all set to do away with that outmoded Buddhist Kingdom, everybody spoke of democracy ... but hardly anyone meant so. Speaking of democracy, some thought of overthrowing the Chogyal, some meant legalisation of their encroachments, others had their personal career and profit in mind, a powerful stakeholder envisaged nothing short of take-over while a minority group was determined to ensure no change at all would take place. The only thought they all had in common was the determination to exclude 'the others' once and for all to interfere with their own ambitions.

No surprise, this was to provide the base for a virtual launch failure of democracy in Sikkim preventing the noble ideas from gaining foothold to the present day. As evident in retrospect, the dirty game produced but losers, however, the one losing most painfully was democracy itself. Since, Sikkim has been ruled by narrow-minded satraps of Delhi - Kazi, Bhandari, Chamling, invariably political patricides - clinging to power with the help of uncertain henchmen defecting forth and back. Their respective parties - as volatile as the members - have known just two statutory provisions: Preservation of power and exclusion of the others.

Close to the passage into an election year, it may be time to recall what the ancient Greeks had in mind when they constituted the system of democracy, some 2500 years ago, and what developments later generations contributed:

Essentially, democracy (literally "rule by the people") is an inclusive system aimed at involving every individual affiliated to a relevant political direction. As a rule of thumb, relevance is attributed to a group able to gather the support of five percent of the voting population.

Democracy is egalitarian. Every major citizen - the wise, the fool as well as the evil - has the right and the responsibility to speak out and decide freely, and every vote has exactly the same valuation. Sometimes, this is a principle as hard to bear as it is indispensable.

Democracy means competition of ideas. A one-party state can not be democratic. The governing group requires oppositional parties for democratic legitimation and control as well as to rise aspects that are not represented in the government's point of view. As the US or India demonstrate, even two dominant parliamentary blocks hardly ensure smooth operation of a democratic system. Three or more parties and the need to find decisions in changing coalitions warrant for a higher probability that policies adopted are based on the consideration of facts rather than on ideology. Democratic parties generally have taken to proclaim their political intentions in a manifesto in order to let the electorate know what they stand for.

Going back to Locke and Montesquieu, modern democracy entails separation of powers to avoid undue concentration of authority and despotism. The parliament, the government and the judiciary are entirely independent institutions. No appointee can be a member of more than one of these bodies.

Comparing conditions in Sikkim with these principles, it becomes obvious, at once, that the state is far from being a democracy. The pluralism of the Sikkimese society is not mirrored in an appropriately pluralistic political system. The present administration mainly aims at perpetuating absolute power, excluding dissenting voices and attempting to brand the term 'opposition' as a dirty word. The members of the government are, at the same time, members of the legislative assembly whose paramount duty of supervising the government is, thus, reduced to absurdity, the ministers constituting a majority of the assembly.

On the other hand, oppositional groups have failed to launch a serious debate on the burning issues, for which the ruling front's refusal of discussion is only partly responsible. The established parties suffer a lack of credibility due to the fact that their frontmen, at one time or another during the last 30 years, were in power as well and, thus, part of the problem. This applies no less to the 'new' parties, eventhough they managed to embrace a number of fresh personalities. Wether these are to induce a transformation or just serve as cover-ups for the old machinations is yet to be seen.

In total absence of a competition of ideas, the two dominant blocks have taken to ridiculous tokenism like hoisting party flags and tearing down those of the competitors, ritualised mass-defections and re-defections or big-mouthed speeches praising their own qualities while bashing the failures of the adversaries - in short: Awkward bragging. Incumbent SDF sticks to the proven promotional tactics of distributing public funds hundredfold and promises to distribute thousandfold once re-elected - another version of 'opium of the people'. Meanwhile, the oppositional SKM simply offers the pledge to oust the ruling party - another version of 'believe and thou shalt be saved'.

But none of the Sikkimese parties readying themselves for the upcoming elections made a honest attempt, so far, of taking the citizens' discontent seriously and putting up approaches for general discussion. They do not care about convincing the citizens with sound proposals. The electorate is allotted the role of 'vote bank' - an euphemism for 'useful idiots' - and nobody seems to bother about the insult. Accordingly, burning issues responsible for the ongoing political blockade are not addressed. Measures against the rampant corruption, the sell-out of natural resources to outside profiteers, the destruction of the state's ecological balance, record high suicide rates, illegal immigration accompanied by illegal participation in decision making, abolition of the 'old laws' stipulated in the constitution, obvious shortcomings of the outdated electoral laws are, apart from hollow sloganeering, virtual non-issues.

No politician has made proposals, let alone given assurances, to open Sikkim for unrestricted investigations by the CBI, to withdraw from office if charged with crime, to cancel rigged agreements with companies and contractors, to prosecute and punish holders of fake CoI and SSC, to muck out electoral rolls, to allocate subsidies according to need instead of party affiliation, to mention just a few. However, as long as the parties haven't given assurance to do away with such and other evils, it may be safe to assume they want to draw their profit from them.

Under these circumstances, it were foolhardy to even expect visions. Or, has anybody ever heard one of the many 'leaders' speak out on the need to transform the parliament of Sikkim into a bicameral system to find a fair balance between the justified demands of the under-represented Nepalese majority as well as for the even as justified right to protection of the indigenous communities? Has any of them ever expressed a thought that the rich cultural and religious heritage of Sikkim is, may be, too precious to be consumed as an exploitable asset of the tourism industry?

It's in your hands. Of course, you can bring to power another friend turned foe. Of course you can blind out the obvious shortcomings of your favoured party, once again. Of course, you can aim at 'sweeping the polls' once more. But don't think this will bring change, history taught us better. Change doesn't happen like this, we have to change. If you don't press your candidate for explicit assurances now, the passage into the new year bears a dreary inscription:

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Chopel Serkhangpa, 22nd December 2013