Dynastic Politics in India

I am sure many of you would have caught the news that Lalu Prasad’s son is now being groomed for induction into Papa’s party. This is not unique to the Yadav parivar. A history of Indian politics reveals a rich tradition of famous families. The trend of “dynastic politics” has only escalated in recent years. Famous last names are now ubiquitous in Indian politics. I could come up with the following examples out of the top of my head – Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Maran, Sangma, Abdullah, Pawar, Patil, Pilot, Mahajan, Badal, Singh, Scindia, Deora, Reddy, Yadav etc. etc.

It is in this context that answers to two probing questions must be sought –
1. What are the causes behind the emergence of political families, and why do they remain resilient for so long?
2. Is this an indicator of a weak political system where politics is dominated by famous last names rather than strong institutions?

Definitive answers may be difficult to find, but I proffer some explanations that would make the underlying issues easier to understand.

Causes and reasons for resilience

At the outset it is important to understand that political dynasties abound in other democracies as well. One may look to the famous American political families – the Adams’, Kennedys’ and the Bushs’. England is also not immune. Harold Macmillan’s cabinet in the 50’s had 11 members who were related to each other. Closer home – Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh all have famous families in political limelight. Dynasties in areas other than politics are perhaps more tenacious. Business dynasties are too common to be named. Dynasties exist even in some of the more “merit” driven professions. Of course the fact that dynasties are ubiquitous is not by itself reason enough to say that “dynastic politics” is to be assessed on the same terms or even that this a good thing, but it still goes to show that this is neither unique to India nor to politics.

There are two main reasons that can explain the causes behind and the reasons for “dynastic politics”. The first applies to dynastic politics generally, but the second is uniquely Indian –

First, to speak the language of economics – a political career requires enormous start up outlays. Although there are laws which limit spending by candidates, in practice it is often found that the actual costs to contest and campaign for election to a seat is very high. Further, despite substantial investments, the returns are unpredictable, risky and more importantly, uniquely binary. Either you win or you lose. A candidate’s loss by the narrowest of margins is as much a loss as everyone else in the fray. Only those who can afford to lose the time and money and have the requisite resources find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not a closed club, are able to afford this profession. Political lineage helps facilitate this entry.

Second, one may conceive of politics as being built around ideology. In western democracies political parties can be categorized on their different approaches to economic and social policies. The divide between the Tories and Labour in the UK or the Republicans and Democrats in the US can be explained by their positions on economic and social issues. In India however, apart from some exceptions, politics revolves around identities. Take the case of caste – Brahmins, Yadavs, Dalits etc; religion – Hindus and Muslims; regional identity – Marathas and non-Marathas; lingual identity – Tamils and non-Tamils etc. In a political culture that accords primacy to identities, political parties are equated with the identity and the will of a few powerful personalities. Political families become established brands having a high recall value and the faithful hope to find spiritual continuity with family heirs becoming political successors. For a voter used to voting on the lines of identity, a family pedigree provides legitimacy (to the candidate) and convenience (to the voter) at the time of choice.

Are political dynasties an indicator of weak political institutions?

A stock argument made by supporters of dynastic politics is that the public would ultimately assess the merit of all candidates at the time of voting. Dynasty may provide a party ticket – it cannot confirm success at elections. Even if one does win, a family name casts a heavier burden upon the politician to live up to such name and legacy. The bigger the brand, the bigger the expectations. One may, at some level, sympathise with these views. The question however is not whether dynasties are necessarily incompatible with democracy – the numerous examples in other, more mature, democracies suggest that they are not – but rather, is voting on filial lines a good thing?

I think a system that assesses a candidate on the basis of their pedigree alone and one that prioritises filial identity (or any other ascriptive identity for that matter) is a mark of a weak political institution. A system in which political parties are treated as extension of a few families, also marks a serious lack of internal democracy. Of course, democracy is based on the principles of “choice”, and one may choose to vote based on any criterion. A democracy allows me to vote for X not because I think X will be a good administrator, but because I have voted for X’s father, grandfather or great grand father. This thinking is defensible in a democratic framework, perhaps it may even be said to be “rational”, but it surely is not a good thing. Voting along lines of identity stifles innovation and emergence of new ideas and encourages divisive politics built around patronage. It prioritises identity over policy, divisiveness over governance, continuity over change and alienation over inclusion.

Conclusion

There is no necessary incompatibility between democracy and dynasty. However a system of politics that values filial identity as a measure of merit needs amends. Given the current system, it is more likely than not that the harbingers of change to the present political order would be products of a political dynasty. By itself this should not be a reason to discredit their achievements or intentions. Indeed this would be much welcomed.