A recent poll was concluded by this newspaper on the issue of money and voting. The results of the poll must be seen in a very concerning and disappointed manner. The reason behind this utter disappointment is that 40 percent of the people voted yes that they would vote for money. The main concern in this matter is the fact that this 40 percent consists of the educated and aware strata of the society. If we look it in this light 40 percent is a heavy majority of people who are not concerned about the immediate political reforms needed in the state. The issue of voting for money is an age old problem in the whole country but Arunachal has been marred with this problem for generations now.
Universal franchise is an excellent instrument of accountability in any democracy. It is the legal and constitutional power of a citizen, the voice of the common man, the anger, the satisfaction of every denizen. How much sense does it make to sell this power for a few thousand?
We always lament the rampant corruption in the state. The unemployment rate is at all time high. Yes the revenue generation broke all the records this year, but the bigger question is where is the infrastructural development against that revenue? How many jobs were created? How many entrepreneurial enterprises set up?
These are the questions we can ask our potential representatives and hold them accountable for the same , but when we decide to take money and vote for a candidate we throw all of these questions under the bus and belittle the very spirit of the constitution and insult the sacrifices made to achieve the sovereign constitution.
Keyboard activism and shouting on Facebook and Twitter will not bring any change. The 40 percent along with the rest 60 percent need to actively participate in the reformation process and make the less literate of the inner village areas aware of the dire prevalent situation.
If we choose to shut up and take money, then we lose the right to criticize the incumbent governments and we give our approval to the ongoing corruption.
What do we want, a better sustainable political condition in the state for the future generation or the same money and politics synergism that has destabilized the state’s political condition irrespective of the party in power.