A two part, edit page article in The Telegraph, by Pratap Bhanu Mehta after returning from a India-China cooperation summit in Beijing some years ago, are worth recalling for the absorbing arguments on the sources of legitimacy for different forms of governments. His comparison between India and China, in this regard, is loaded with lessons. These lessons can very well be for Manipur too and hence this invitation for further reflection, although we are aware most would have already read the original article, The Telegraph being a widely read newspaper in the state. One of the chief contentions is that the governments of China and India by necessity draw their legitimacy differently and from different sources. Being a democracy, India puts a premium on representation. There is beauty in this but it nevertheless dilutes the question of accountability. It ensures participation of all different sections of the people in the governance process but this itself becomes the primary end justice, leaving the question of performance, the other vital functions of any government, as secondary. Consider this. The official counter against the charge that the Northeast occupies only a peripheral space in the Indian national consciousness and hence neglected, is that every one of the Northeast states is represented in all the institutions of the Indian state, administrative as well as legislative, hence the question of neglect, or injustice, at least at the institutional level, does not arise. The fact that the Northeast still remains backward does not seem to be considered a factor in assessing the legitimacy of the government system. It is as if representation is all.
Every now and then, this logic comes to be put to test each time there is a challenge to the constitutional provision for reservation. As we have seen, these challenges in various forms, sometimes by those asking for its abrogation, and at other times by an increasing number of people who were previously not entitled to these privileges, now wanting to be included into the reservation fold are on the increase. The point again is, ensuring representation may be a necessary condition for the larger understanding of justice, but the questions remain `“ is it sufficient condition? On the smaller canvas of Manipur too, and we are sure all other states as well, the source of government legitimacy is drawn from similar wells and are invariably beset with the same flaws. Take the case of the hill-valley divide. Here too, as all of us know, the fierce contest for representation is at the crux of politics and is indeed treated as the only legitimate route to systemic as well as social justice. Every community wants as much handle in the government as possible and the equilibrium struck between the numerous pulls and pressures from these demands is what constitutes a stable government. However, after this equilibrium is reached, the other important considerations of accountability and performance are somewhat pushed into the background.
Again, here too, as in the case of the larger canvas of the Indian Union, the counter argument against discrimination charges by any community or region, most specifically by the hill districts, is the proportion of representation. That the hills have been very much a part of the political and administration processes in proportionate measures, and that even two Nagas have been chief ministers. These are facts, but must not government legitimacy also take into account performance? Why then have the hill districts lagged behind in development? These questions should be made answerable by state leaders, regardless of whether she or he is from the hills or the valley.
By contrast, the challenges of legitimacy before the government in China are different. It leaders are nominated ones hence the only way they can win this legitimacy is through performance and accountability. Because of this, the nature of their motivation and drive are radically different. This onerous expectation has even led China in recent times to treat Capitalism and Communism not as ideologies, but as instruments of development, to be administered in measured doses as per the developmental needs of the society. In our situation, this quest for legitimacy would be somewhat similar that of a President`™s Rule scenario when a nominated Governor runs the civil administration. He too must have to seek his legitimacy through performance and accountability alone. No state can know this better than Manipur which has seen numerous spells of President`™s Rule. The Chinese system too has its flaws, but we have no doubt many will agree that there are lessons in it that can benefit our own outlook to what should constitute good governance.