It is either a very unique Naga style of parliamentary democracy or the complete nonchalance on the part of the present Chief Minister TR Zeliang and his not so well informed advisers that the chief minister without any remorse put the blame of his earlier statements made in the August house of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly on certain occasions to the former chief minister. The latter was his leader of the party and also the Leader of the House on whose pleasure he himself was also given a portfolio and serving as a Minister in that same government.
The reply to the MLA was released by the press cell of the Chief Ministers Office and covered by all the leading dallies on November 16. The Chief Minister claimed that his speeches made in the house during the debate on the Municipal Act 2001 with regard to 33% women reservation in March 2012 and as the Chairman of the Select Committee that submitted the recommendations to the house in September 2012 were all made at the behest of the then Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio.
An elected member himself, elected through free franchise to represent his constituency and also holding a portfolio then, has now retracted that his statements and speeches as not his own. He claimed that he was just echoing the wishes of his then chief minister. Even for the common man it defies all logic and brings into question the integrity and of the person instead. It also raises doubts on the present ruling party if its functioning is always on similar lines. It is not one of the best thoughts to be provoked for the common people with elections approaching in about a year. However the most important point is that this episode is beyond personalities and inter-party or intra-party rivalries because it completely casts aside the principles of parliamentary democracy and degrades the August House. How can those statements that is under one’s name in the Assembly records be erased by just a press release in the media?
In a healthy parliamentary democracy with an opposition, in similar cases, any party will consider it as a breach of privilege. But with an opposition-less government and a public that is in majority dependent on the government and politicians even this issue will be comfortably forgotten setting another bad precedent for the future.
