Democracy?s tryst with dynasty: How India compares with the rest

By Saarthak Anand

When Indian National Congress Vice President, Rahul Gandhi, spoke of the dynastic nature of Indian politics, he was not too far off the mark. At a recent interaction with the students of the University of California, Berkeley, when asked why his party is dynastic, the Congress heir apparent said,” Most parties in India have that problem. So Mr Akhilesh Yadav is a dynast. Mr(M.K.) Stalin is a dynast… So that’s what happens in India.”

No one can assert that Indian politics is free from dynastic shackles. Many leaders from across the political spectrum—from Omar Abdullah to M.K. Stalin, from Uddhav Thackeray to Naveen Patnaik—are products of a system which has fostered the development of family legacies. Even in parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), most of whose foremost leaders do not hail from politically influential families, the dynasty is well-prevalent in the lower rungs. Many of the party’s MPs are dynasts, and a number of prominent leaders have orchestrated the entry of their family members into politics. This includes senior politicians like Rajnath Singh, Prem Kumar Dhumal, Vasundhara Raje and Raman Singh.

A global quandary

It is, however, crucial to note that such an arrangement is not sacrosanct to India and its neighbours like Bangladesh and Pakistan. Canada, another Westminster democracy,  is currently ruled by Justin Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Yoong is the eldest son of the nation’s first PM and revered leader Lee Kuan Lew. Other South-East Asian countries like South Korea and Thailand, too, have powerful dynasties. One needs to shine a spotlight on the United States, the world’s oldest democracy. Its celebrated electoral process notwithstanding, the US has not been above nurturing political families like the Kennedys and the Clintons. The Bush, Adams and Harrison families have all had more than one member assume the highest office.

A greater bother in India

Unfortunately, the similarity to Western nations like the US and Canada is no reason for India to celebrate. While dynasties have thrived in all democracies, parties and elections continue to be far more democratic in the West. No individual or family enjoys control of the Republican and Democratic parties, whereas the Nehru-Gandhi family remains the undisputed commander of the Congress, despite the party seeing its fortunes dip tremendously under  Rahul Gandhi’s charge. Besides, everyone—including the members of celebrated dynasties—has to contest intra-party primary elections for the party’s nomination, in most Western democracies.

Indeed, former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Presidential primary to Barack Obama, then a low-profile Senator from Illinois. Jeb Bush, son and brother to former Presidents, was beaten decisively in the Republican primary for the 2016 Presidential election. This process is followed even at the level of contesting for the city council seats. India, in stark contrast, follows an enormously opaque system of ticket distribution. Party workers have no say even in the selection of Prime Ministerial candidates.

Dynasty at odds with democracy

Dynastic politics flies in the face of one of the most fundamental aspects of democracy—choice. When leaders and candidates are selected without the involvement of those on the ground, the choice in the hands of the voters is reduced. This is especially unbecoming of a parliamentary democracy like India, where elections are held to elect local representatives, not the head of the state directly. In addition, a dynastic system provides common citizens with little incentive to participate, since they have quite a diminished chance of climbing the ladder. As a consequence, there is a general deterioration in the quality of ambitions, and by implication, of governance. When an incumbent vacates a seat or passes away, it is commonplace for family members to contest the ensuing polls, asking for votes in their name. Such arrangements feed on the traditionally strong family ties in India. The issues of governance—the ones that actually matter to people’s lives—get relegated to oblivion.

Many a party has seen a split not on ideological grounds, but over a tussle between potential heirs for the political legacy of the party supremo. Shiv Sena, DMK, and, more recently, the Samajwadi Party, have witnessed unpleasant power battles that have laid bare the ugly face of politics. This is a sad reflection of the harsh truth. More than 65 years after the first general election, politics in the country is less a means of public service, and more an instrument of attaining power and prestige.

Democracy, in the true sense of the word, draws its legitimacy from the grassroots. What is required is to promote intra-party democracy, so that political parties become channels of participatory politics, instead of being family fiefdoms.

Featured Image Source: Visual Hunt