Opinion Political parties cannot be a family business
Discrimination perpetrated by family-controlled politics is alien to the spirit of our Constitution. It is time to reform structure and functioning of these institutions
PM Modi has famously said that the exodus from the Congress is a result of the vicious cycle of nepotism. Nepotism is leading to the fragmentation of political parties. (File Photo) Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar recently made an insightful statement, underscoring the perils of dynastic politics and family-centric political parties. He said, “Had I been born in senior’s (Sharad Pawar) house, I would have naturally become the national president and the entire party (NCP) would have been under my control.” Sadly, Ajit Pawar is not alone. Varun Gandhi, Raj Thackeray or several young members of NTR’s family may well have said the same thing. That’s why Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s sustained attack on family-controlled political parties is important. PM Modi has famously said that the exodus from the Congress is a result of the vicious cycle of nepotism. Nepotism is leading to the fragmentation of political parties.
The discrimination perpetrated by family-controlled politics is alien to the spirit of the country’s Constitution. Although dynastic politics has been a matter of conversation on several occasions in the past, this is the right time to discuss reforms in the structure and constitution of the country’s political parties.
Generally speaking, political parties get their cadre from public-spirited youth, including a large number of activists from student organisations. Many have lofty ideals and a semblance of ideological clarity. The lack of idealism of many small parties has not slackened the motivation of these youngsters. Sadly however, the dynasty-driven organisational character of several regional political parties compels these youngsters to give up on idealism. Many end up becoming part of the inner circle or coteries of leaders. In return, such leaders often provide patronage to the young cadre. Such a quid-pro-quo serves the cause of both the leader and the cadre. Many family-centric parties are today an agglomeration of several such clusters. Such an organisational structure relegates ideology to the periphery.
Even a cursory look at the dynastic political parties in the country would tell us that they practically outsource the conduct of their party organisations to groups led by influential leaders who help garner resources in a decentralised manner. These resources then go to the centralised coffers only to be controlled by the chief of the dynasty. The control of the coffers — mostly filled with ill-gotten money — is a significant factor in promoting family control of dynastic political parties. This is the basic premise from which political party reforms should proceed — in other words, these reforms should ensure that parties evolve and function as key democratic institutions.
The realisation of the need for far-reaching reforms in the way political parties conduct themselves was felt a long time ago. In 1960, the 15th Law Commission undertook a thorough review of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Its report suggested the creation of a legal framework dealing with the functioning of political parties. The Commission made a strong pitch for “internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of political parties”. It pointed out that, “A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country”.
The commission proposed a new section, “organisation of political parties and matters incidental there”, be added to the Representation of People Act 1951. It envisaged that this provision would ensure the regular holding of elections in political parties and transparency in financial affairs. The Commission also suggested that the failure to comply with these provisions should lead to the de-recognition of a political party. Leaders cutting across party lines have also advocated far-reaching reforms in the structure of political parties — they include Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Vasant Sathe, P A Sangma and Sugata Roy.
One hopes that in his third term in office, PM Modi will initiate reforms to liberate political parties from the clutches of a single family. The Societies Act of some states could be useful for this purpose. These acts disallow relatives from becoming office-bearers simultaneously. Other major reforms should focus on making the process of forming a new political party more serious and the mandatory maintenance of a comprehensive register of membership at the district and state levels. Parties should also invest in a human resource development mechanism for elected representatives.
Political parties are institutions. If we ignore the need to reform them, the quality of democratic governance will continue to be jeopardised.
The writer is president, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, former national vice-president of the BJP and MP, Rajya Sabha
Share
