Opinion Scale of dynastic politics, across political parties, is a warning and a symptom

In a democracy as large and vibrant as India, there are several ways to categorise and analyse political parties: Through ideology, modes of organisation, as well as area and scope of influence. However, as an investigation in this newspaper has shown, dynastic leaders are common to nearly all major parties in the country. About 149 families — in a country of 1.45 billion — have more than one dynast-legislator. Congress, even in its diminished state, has 857 legislators and 33.2 per cent of them are dynasts. The BJP has almost thrice the number of legislators — 2,078 MPs, MLAs and MLCs — but its share of dynasts is 18.6 per cent, just above half that of Congress. Most major regional parties — from the SP and RJD to the JD(U), DMK and TDP — are dominated by families in both party and government. The Left parties are exceptions. The most obvious danger of this epidemic of political fiefdoms is the diminishing opportunities for new talent and the narrowing of representation to a few lineages. The sheer scale of the problem, however, demands a more nuanced analysis.

With all its ups and downs, Indian democracy has deepened representation since Independence — both within and outside electoral politics. Since the first generation of leaders who gained credibility because of participation in the anti-colonial struggle, the polity has expanded — as a result of protests, elections, splits and new entrants — to give political voice to marginalised groups. Today, almost every major political party must take into account these voices and their aspirations, in one form or another — from Dalits and religious minorities to Adivasis, OBCs and women. This churn makes painting every party with the same brush a fraught exercise. The question, then, is not merely about how many “dynasts” are in a party but also the internal structures that enable mobility, and where on the social ladder its leaders are. In the case of parties emerging from social justice movements, for example, the failure is arguably as much structural as of leadership: While the first generation of leaders emerged from a culture of protest, they did not build organisations that allowed for the creation of a broader, more empowered leadership pool. The Left and the BJP are ideological and cadre-based, where such structures have been built in. The Left has withered away except in Kerala and the BJP has ensured more of a level playing field than others, although it should also pay heed to early warning signs: As its power footprint grows, more families are getting a slice of the pie. For Congress, India’s oldest party, family leadership is the most ossified, its label of “dynastic politics” well-earned.

Advertisement

Over half of India’s population is under 30. How many of them can look up to a leadership that can empathise with their struggles and aspirations? How many leaders can they look up to who have worked their way in? For political parties, this is an important question to ask themselves. Dynastic politics is a symptom. Few would object to the son or daughter of a politician getting a ticket if they came up through the ranks, paid their dues, from the panchayat or municipal level to Parliament. Political parties need to open their doors and at the same time set a higher bar for relatives. In fact, a family association should be seen as a liability rather than the asset it now is. This will ensure political competition and the continued confidence of the electorate, and their long-term future. Without such reform, parties will fail to attract talent and may well wither away — to make way for those that do.