Family politics playbook

Voter has a right to know how a party she has voted for will manage leadership transition in the family.

Written by Sanjaya Baru | Updated: October 25, 2016 1:22 pm
The political family quarrels of our times remind us of the business family battles of the past. Soon, voters too will demand such clarity in the functioning of family-run political parties.

It’s time an institute of management education started a course on managing family-based political parties. Family business management is a discipline that has evolved from an art into a science. The market for this line of education has been created by the growing recognition of family-run companies that shareholders are demanding greater clarity on issues ranging from succession to the management of wealth and the distribution of profits.

WATCH VIDEO: Power Struggle In Mulayam’s Party: Here’s What People Say

Soon, voters too will demand such clarity in the functioning of family-run political parties, given the proliferation of such entities and the universal failure of political patriarchs to manage their families and, as a consequence, their parties.

There is now a wealth of literature on managing family businesses and the more progressive, forward-looking business leaders have even created Family Constitutions and Family Councils. Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav should have enrolled himself for one of those courses before things came to the current pass in his many-membered political family.

The political family quarrels of our times remind us of the business family battles of the past. They are driven as much by ego and competing agendas as they are by the fight for the division of wealth and spoils. The collection of funds for political purposes within family-based political parties is only the visible source of income for members of political families. In more recent times, family-based political parties have acquired millions of dollars of assets in India and abroad and this has raised the stakes.

Consider the experience of six political families and how they have handled legacy issues. Indira Gandhi was the first Indian politician to internalise within the family the issue of leadership succession within a political party. She was not particularly adroit in doing so. When she opted for her son, Sanjay Gandhi, she never imagined that upon his death his widow, Maneka, would want to inherit the mantle. Like a good patriarch she chose another son over the daughter-in-law, causing the first such rift within a family created by political choices. Interestingly, Indira’s daughter-in-law, Sonia, has also opted for patriarchy over performance, choosing a politically uninclined son over a politically savvy daughter.

The more dramatic family quarrels have, however, been within regional parties. Telugu Desam supremo, N.T. Rama Rao, tried to impose his second wife on his party and was worsted by his rebellious son-in-law, Nara Chandrababu Naidu, who took the party away from him and his family rivals. His daughter and another son-in-law lost out to the smarter Naidu, who is now trying to impose his son on his party. In Chennai, the many children of DMK leader K. Karunanidhi, from his many wives, have been fighting for some time now and the politics of that state will be shaped by how those family battles play out once he is gone. The quarrel among the inheritors of Shiv Sena boss Bal Thackeray continues to plague the state and the metropolis with disastrous consequences for the country as a whole, as we have seen this past week.

While the founder-leader of the BSP, Kanshi Ram, made it obvious in his lifetime that his loyalist, Mayawati, would inherit the mantle from him, the AIADMK founder, M.G. Ramachandran, left a messy legacy with his wife and his partner, J. Jayalalithaa fighting out the succession battle. In Telangana, there is already speculation as to whether party founder K. Chandrashekhar Rao would be succeeded by his talented and urbane son, K.T. Rama Rao, or the party’s organisation man, his nephew T. Harish Rao.

Back in the 1980s and even into the 1990s, the business media was full of stories about business family wars — father-son battles, sibling rivalry and the Mahabharata-like quarrels between first wife and second wife and mistress and so on. Some of the biggest and oldest business families featured prominently in the news stories of the times. The Birlas, the Shrirams, the Modis were among the more prominent, while business empire division and managerial control issues impacted almost every prominent business family. The last and the most celebrated business family quarrel was the one between the sons of Dhirubhai Ambani.

Living through this and suddenly experiencing unplanned and rapid expansion of his business, the chairman of the GMR Group, G.M. Rao, chose to write a family constitution and create a family council. Rao’s objective was that the inheritors of his business empire would not dissolve it through divisive battles. As he told a business magazine, “to achieve 100 per cent corporate governance, family governance is needed.”

The more progressive business families are now following the GMR example of drawing up family constitutions and charters, setting up family councils and informing shareholders as to what their succession plan is. Businessman Analjit Singh, who was himself at the receiving end of a celebrated family dispute, recently spoke to an Indian Business School audience on the need for “mindfulness” in managing family issues in the larger interests of shareholders.

It is an idea that the heads of family-based political parties must internalise not just to keep the family together, but, and more importantly, to ensure good political management. In a report on managing family business, consultancy organisation McKinsey has enunciated five principles: (a) ensure harmonious relations within the family and an understanding of how it should be involved with the business; (b) create an ownership structure that provides sufficient capital for growth while allowing the family to control key parts of the business; (c) ensure strong governance of the company and a dynamic business portfolio; (d) opt for professional management of the family’s wealth; and (e) create charitable foundations that promote family values across generations.

The voter’s right to know how a political party she has voted for will manage leadership transition is even more important than a shareholder’s right to know how her investment will be managed by a family in transition. In a democracy, should voters not be demanding greater “mindfulness” on the part of political leaders in the handling of family issues?

The writer is honorary senior fellow, CPR, New Delhi

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

First Published on: October 25, 2016 12:02 am
  1. P
    Prashant
    Oct 25, 2016 at 8:28 am
    What so ever may be the case,,,,In UP Bihar,,, politics means Caste equation,,,,,,Y M,,,,forward backward,,,,Hindu muslim,,,that's all
    Reply
    1. P
      Prashant
      Oct 25, 2016 at 8:31 am
      akhilesh did nothing for Purvanchal area,,,some of my frnds in Bihar side village are getting 15 hrs electricity in their villages,,,,whereas in UP(eastern UP),,,,we get barely 5-8 hrs,,vo bhi kai baar ,,,puraa din ka Golaa
      Reply
      1. A
        Archana Das
        Oct 25, 2016 at 12:05 pm
        Do not call political party, it is company with limited or no liability company
        Reply
        1. S
          Swadhyay
          Oct 25, 2016 at 2:10 am
          In democracy, people has to be well informed and they can vote out family dynasty. Family dynasty should be exposed and let people not vote for them. Also party should not promote dynasty.
          Reply
          1. A
            Abhipsa
            Oct 25, 2016 at 8:48 am
            Sir, you have left out Lalu Prasad Yadav ji.
            Reply
            1. O
              Orion
              Oct 25, 2016 at 4:01 pm
              Good stuff! We can bring subjectivity and objectivity to define our concept of political family index (like other indices). Let's consider the five points of McKinsey in X-axis, values like ego/emotion/renunciation etc on Y-axis and positives (or negatives) of governance in real life like fires in hospital, stampedes, job creation, social disharmony incidents etc in Z-axis. We can ign different weights to calibrate and come up with Baru ji ka ranking...
              Reply
              1. D
                Dev Verma
                Oct 25, 2016 at 4:47 pm
                Don't call him ji....he is biggest pig and a curse on India and bihar as well. should be banned forthwith no entry to any state whatsoever.
                Reply
                1. J
                  jayaram reddi
                  Oct 25, 2016 at 1:15 pm
                  Voters should get rid of family run political parties. Only then you will have true democracy.
                  Reply
                  1. B
                    BharatK
                    Oct 25, 2016 at 1:11 pm
                    And these companies are supportedby the elite left-wing media, from NDTV to IE, to The Hindu and list goes on.
                    Reply
                    1. K
                      Kiran
                      Oct 25, 2016 at 11:42 am
                      Yes, I like the Idea. Let us start with Congress Party.
                      Reply
                      1. S
                        Sankaran Krishnan
                        Oct 25, 2016 at 7:58 am
                        Though we are all talking about Democracy and democratic rights of the voters, whereas in our Political and Business system the Dynasty plays an important role and the families involved want to show their strength to attain the top position and will go to any extent to get it done which was all happenings all through years both in Business and Politics and the Family Dynasty will stay in India with aristocratic manner and to take the mettle they will resort any gimmicks to retain the power and authority!!!
                        Reply
                        1. M
                          M Vyas
                          Oct 26, 2016 at 1:16 pm
                          Why only parties run by families but why not corporate?? Give you single exemple...Yash Birla belong to b Birla was chargesheeted recently...Earlier his name appeared in Swiss Bank account holder...He was heading five six limited listed public company under Yash Birla Group. He resigned for above but inducted his wife in board of directors. Recently his very young son was elected as chairman . Why Kumar Mangalam not taking charge and save B Birla?? B tarnished so much by his cousin..G D Birla was true hian and he would not hv allowed this to happen like Tata in case of Cyrus Mistry..
                          Reply
                          1. P
                            Parth Garg
                            Oct 25, 2016 at 8:20 am
                            And the public will demand explanation from their confidantes who back-stabs them after retirement for cheap publicity and perhaps money from of their books.
                            Reply
                            1. R
                              Ramesh Chhabra
                              Oct 25, 2016 at 5:51 am
                              Why dynasty be limited in politics. There are many other public areas those have dynasty/ relations. If Politics can be controlled by Voters, how others public areas can be controlled?
                              Reply
                              1. V
                                V. Setty
                                Oct 25, 2016 at 1:26 am
                                You must be dreaming..... yes, democracy can make such things happen.... however, the entire "Indian Democracy thrives on Caste and Family".... these are not earned postions, they are enlements.....lt;br/gt;Good luck on your dreams...
                                Reply
                                1. S
                                  subraman
                                  Oct 25, 2016 at 8:32 am
                                  You seriously think people who voted for these rodents will ask for explanations? They don't care as long they can get something in return. They don't care about honesty or democracy. Throw in a cooker or fan and everything will be OK.
                                  Reply
                                  1. Load More Comments