By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, June 23:
A society grows where the political, social and community leaders play the role of leaders in social transformation endeavours of the community. The game the leaders play are not one of self-interests but one of shared moving forward of the societies of which they are the leaders. In a representative democracy, the roles of the elected representatives are absolutely paramount. If the nation happens to be diverse and big – in both demography and geography – the qualitative characteristic of the conduct of shared responsibility by the elected leaders at every layer of representativeness will decide the speed, direction and manner of social transformation. Under constitutional institutionalism, institutions are “formal structures, including rules and regulations reflected in the legislative framework, that provide the frames for the behaviour of individuals operating within these structures.” This is not a simple outcome which just falls from the sky but there are imperative paths to be followed by the leaders. With the increasing complexity and the deepening technological competition around the globe, this is an unavoidable journey to be followed with the efforts to digest and manage the risks arising in any turn of social policy and resultant transformation and where the length of time being taken in any decision and step is critical. Mackinsey has just published a special issue of what it calls classics published over the years. While all the articles are superb, I would like to reproduce a quote from a 1966 article by Roger Morrison and included in the collection: “Analysis shows that companies with outstanding growth, in terms of earnings per share, have followed three growth strategies – either singly or in combination: (1) exploiting existing products in existing fields; (2) adding new products or models to an existing line; and (3) entering fields wholly new to the company.” While he was writing about the organisations, I feel the strategies are the same to be followed in transforming and taking a society fast forward. In the collection, there is also an article emphasising the “granularity” while taking decisions in order that success is the outcome.
Manipur has experienced more than two years of political turmoil. In the beginning, it looked like a politico-socio-economic one, but sooner than later this has become a political game lock, stock and barrel.
The most painful and extremely unfortunate characteristic of the leaders supposedly applying their mind on analysing, understanding and trying to take decisions are in need of a deeper and wider understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of Manipur – purely internal and incorporating the external dimensions. Many people claim to have digested the politico-socio-economic dimensions of Manipur historically as well as dynamically. The interactions and evolutionary issues of the simultaneously prevailing differential property rights regimes in Manipur are no longer simple. The atmosphere is now dominated by political endeavours for personal benefits; the rationality in the claimed attempts by the leaders at all levels is very different from the social application of the concept familiar to the economists.
Here I cannot resist a reference to the 19th century French thinker, Saint-Simon. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson are two great contemporary thinkers on social progress. In their 2023 book on Power And Progress, they discuss inter alia the contribution of Saint-Simon on social progress. “Saint-Simon was an aristocratic writer who maintained that human progress is driven by scientific invention and the application of new ideas to industry. But he also thought that the right leadership was critical for this progress: “All enlightened peoples will adopt the view that men of genius should be given the highest social standing.” Power should be in the hands of those who worked for a living and particularly the “men of genius,” not those whom he referred to as “idlers,” which included his own aristocratic family. This meritocracy would naturally facilitate industrial and technological development, broadly sharing the resulting prosperity, not just in France but also around the world. Some regard him as an early socialist, but Saint-Simon was a firm believer in private property and the importance of free enterprise.”
What I have been emphasising in my present piece are four points. First, the leaders trying to resolve the crisis are people with poor understanding, if any, of the politico-socio-economy of Manipur. Second, in this age of knowledge as the basis for every engagement, the first point necessarily points to lack of understanding the dynamics which have been in play among the leaders. Third, the prevalence of the above two points necessarily explains the predominance of political games instead of the Saint-Simon’s progressiveness. Fourth, the imperatives for morality and justice in the functioning of governance are necessarily compromised and visibly so.
Any social context with the above four characteristics would be a very difficult one for the common people, more particularly the poorer sections; this is the case of Manipur now. Prolongation of the crisis only digs into their individual, familial and social capabilities. Even worse, their future – at both individual/household and comparative (locally as well as globally) gets permanently weakened.