The temptations of dynasty

Priyanka Gandhi's entry shows politics remains a family affair

Buried in the third paragraph of a press release from the All India Congress Committee about an internal reorganisation of party office-bearers was a big political news story. The party president, said the release, has appointed Priyanka Gandhi Vadra AICC general secretary for Uttar Pradesh East, with effect from the first week of February. The Congress in Uttar Pradesh was reeling from the decision of the Bahujan Samaj Party-Samajwadi Party alliance to effectively ignore its claims to any more Lok Sabha seats in the state than the two Gandhi family satrapies of Amethi and Rae Bareli; this news might conceivably enthuse the party cadre not only in India’s most populous state, but across the country. The larger question, however, is whether one member of the Gandhi family appointing another to a significant political post is good news for a party that has long been accused of being reluctant to hold internal elections and remaining hereditary property.

 
Dynasties are not good for democracy. The spread of dynastic politics prevents the creation of genuine mass leaders. It is not a coincidence that the only major national mass leader to have emerged in the past 30 years — Prime Minister Narendra Modi — was neither a dynast nor has a family to which he can bequeath his political following. Mr Modi’s appeal lies in his ability to position himself as a man of and from the people. He has often, and expertly, attacked dynastic politics, and the elevation of Ms Gandhi Vadra is only likely to give him one more piece of evidence in this attack. Mass leaders invigorate and revive the democratic spirit. The visible possibility that leadership is open to all ensures that the inclusive character of liberal democracy is preserved, and that disillusionment does not build up across the electorate about a closed system. It also reduces the chances that the political class forms a self-serving, exclusive elite that is out of touch with the real problems of society.

 
While the Congress receives a lot of justifiable flak for its tolerance — and, in this case, promotion — of a dynasty, it is far from being the only offender. In fact, dynastic politics is more the rule than the exception in India. While the top leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the communist parties have been by and large exempt, the second rung of the former has several dynasts in it. And many regional and caste-based parties have now become little more than family-run concerns — literally from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. The two parties of the Valley are family-run, as is the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu. Karnataka has a chief minister who is the son of a former prime minister; the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh is the son-in-law of a predecessor; the CM of newly-formed Telangana is setting up his own dynasty. Odisha is ruled by a dynast, and Punjab by a royal. The “socialist” OBC parties of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are similarly now controlled by families. This is revealing of a deeper malaise within Indian politics. Until more vibrant and inclusive party structures are put in place, Indian democracy will not achieve its full potential.