I couldn’t locate that MorungExpress article online. Should I assume its dominant language is English and generate the SEO title, or can you share a link or copy of the article?
Recent reports of pre-poll violence in Longkhum and Mangmetong villages in Mokokchung district have left a young father dead, damaged 12 vehicles and destroyed two to three houses, underscoring a grim reality: ordinary citizens pay the heaviest price when elections turn violent. The incidents, described as political clashes, highlight how the visible figures in campaigns remain largely insulated while common people bear the physical, legal and social costs.
When election-related violence erupts, it is rarely the candidates or party leaders who are hurt. Headlines may carry their names, but their homes and bodies are usually untouched. Vehicles and houses destroyed belong to residents; the injured are often bystanders, low-level party workers or neighbours caught in factional clashes they did not provoke. This disconnect between planners and victims is a persistent feature of Nagaland’s electoral landscape.
Electoral politics in the state is structured through many layers: party workers, village-level coordinators, clan representatives and other stakeholders stand between candidates and voters. That arrangement helps mobilize support but also diffuses responsibility. When violence occurs, the chain of blame stretches from candidates to supporters to clan tensions, making accountability difficult and leaving those at the bottom to face arrests, social ostracism or worse while the architects escape scrutiny.
Local institutions and social norms intensify the problem. Village councils, clans and tribes exert pressure that can override individual choice. Practices such as endorsing “consensus candidates,” despite being unlawful, persist because the social cost of dissent is often too high. Electoral conflict thus becomes collective: villages, clans and groups clash, and attacks on one household are read as assaults on community honour. Retaliation follows communal logic, not democratic competition, normalising impersonal violence.
Addressing this requires action from the grassroots. Those most affected-ordinary voters, low-level workers and families-need legal literacy and clear information: prohibitory orders exist; booth capturing is a crime; proxy voting is punishable; and no village council has legal authority to dictate someone’s vote. Equipping people to ask, “Whose honour is at stake, and at what cost?” can protect them from coerced participation.
Civic institutions must lead sustained engagement. Churches, civil society organisations, student groups and women’s organisations can create spaces to expose political manipulation, assess the real cost of violence and support individuals in exercising free choice. Without information, organisation and community courage, the cycle will continue: prohibitory orders and arrests after the fact, condemnation without change, and the persistent use of people as instruments while beneficiaries remain protected. The people of Nagaland deserve a democratic process that serves them — achieving it will take grassroots education, collective accountability and sustained civic action.
Original Source: https://www.morungexpress.com/the-candidate-is-safe-are-you
Category: Editorial
Tags:
Publish Date: 2026-04-08 19:13:00
