In the present context of democracy that is prevalent around the world a leader is chosen or elected by the people. The concept or the doctrine is not so in monarchies where a ruler is decided by birth. However, in Nagaland after every election the elected leaders always face the wrath of the people whichever party the legislator belongs to. Electoral democracy in the state is no different from the rest of the country and from around the world with the strict use of the secret ballot. Still, the power of the rich and the mighty that is supposed to go back to the ballot and empower the people is yet to be achieved in Nagaland. Either the influence of the rich and the mighty is too strong to be eradicated or the electorate does not want to eradicate it at all.
Nagaland is a state with hardly 2 million population that is divided into 60 assembly constituencies with 2194 polling stations. The state's administration of the 16 recognised tribes and other indigenous inhabitants is divided into 12 districts with 2-3 sub-divisions currently demanding districts. Even among the 16 tribes the tribes are further divided and grouped according to geographical regions and affinities. All these are further subdivided into about 1400 recognised villages across Nagaland and some few urban areas. All these divisions have its own interest groups and lobbies that would just fabricate issues that gets accentuated during elections. The vote for the best leader somehow gets lost in lieu of the vote for one's interests. The candidates therefore has to address the voters in interest groups and not as individuals, the one major flaw in the democratic process in the state.
Strong leaders are therefore criticised unless he or she is strong enough to use force for the benefit of his supporters, at times even overriding the law. Currently in Nagaland a spineless leader who says yes to all is celebrated. However after the elections, all will join the chorus to criticise how such leaders were made lawmakers. The probable reason why the last tenure all the best leaders during elections, became one of most criticised of all the leaders in the history of the state. On the other hand the leaders of yesteryears who were strong and firm in their decisions are at present considered autocratic. Moreover, the state is divided on so many lines that it is becoming impossible for any leader to listen to the interests of all the sub divisions. Money has become the only power that can win over those vested interests and the money that is used is usually meant for development and public welfare. As long as this scenario does not change the search for the ideal leaders in the state is an exercise in vain.
