In a nation tagged as the world’s largest democracy, Indian politics has been a very dynamic one. An important facet of Indian politics that is now taking predominance is dynastic dominance. Parties are increasingly resorting to dynastic politics. As debates continue on how to end it, given its inherent and proven harm, an invasive form of dynastic politics has been unnoticed. The act of dynastic hijack in Indian politics has been seemingly less identified. Therefore dynastic parties are of two kinds; one that was originated by a leader and kept passing it to a successive family member as a family property; and the other that was originated by a leader and was successively passed on to a non-family member, until one leader hijacked it for his family. These are leaders who are unwilling to hand over the party reins, the way they received it. Such parties are literally ‘hijacked parties’, whose further emergence should be prevented.
The question that arises now is what is unfair if the family member too joins the party and work his or her way up the party? When a leader brings his or her family member into the party fold, there is a conflict of interest for the leader. It is obvious that leaders aspire to see their family member succeed them. The leader has immense power and begins to favor only those who are willing to accept his family member as his successor. Dissenting voices if any are easily bulldozed. Generally there is an automatic approval with the party members rallying around the new family member for their own relevance. There are several instances of opportunistic elevation of a clan member across many political parties, overriding better qualified and eligible party men. Once hijacked, the party has very little or no opportunity to return to freehold again.
History has also shown that dynastic parties in general tend to be more corrupt and perform less. In 2012, a study by Roland Mendoza, an economics professor at the Asian Institute of Management in the Philippines, found that constituencies ruled by dynasts tended to have more poverty and higher income inequality. A year later, in their paper The Effect Of Political Dynasties On Effective Democratic Governance: Evidence From The Philippines, Rollin Tusalem and Jeffrey J. Pe-Aguirre had similar findings, noting that provinces dominated by family clans were less likely to perform well in terms of infrastructure development, health spending, criminality, and employment.
A recent Harvard paper, Understanding The Economic Impacts Of Political Dynasties: Evidence From India, by Siddharth George and Dominic Ponattu, analyzed night-time luminosity as a measure of economic growth to find that constituencies where dynasts won grew 6.5 percentage points slower annually than constituencies where dynasts lost.
The failure of dynastic politics world over may be attributed to several reasons. When the political process is captured by dynastic players, non-dynasts are prevented from participating effectively, thus leaving voters with limited choice. This further makes it difficult to topple and replace dynasties that fail to perform, giving them no reason to perform. With time there is a deterioration of their political ability to perform and state resources are not efficiently utilized for people welfare. Stagnant political system ensures corruption, causing poor performance.
In an editorial titled, Why is Indian politics dominated by dynasties?, BBC’s Sanjoy Majumder looks at why Indian politics is still very much a family business. He quotes political commentator Manini Chatterjee as saying “It is also not uncommon for children to follow their parents’ footsteps in business or even in Bollywood,” she adds. Referring to the parliament MPs, the article sums up on, “Will they be truly representative of the world’s largest democracy, or simply resemble a privileged club whose entry is determined by birth?” It should be noted here that unlike business and Bollywood, politics involves government and public service, and if dynastic politics are detrimental to public welfare, it needs to be tackled.
While dynastic politics may not be easy to end soon, we need to decide if party hijacking is something important that needs to be monitored and prevented from now on. Should hijacking come under the purview of the Election Commission? Or is it enough to leave it to the choice of people in a democratic manner. Sometimes it becomes necessary for us to swallow the bitter pill. Corrupt politicians have excelled in balancing their corrupt deeds and their popularity. This has resulted in our tendency to endorse individuals despite knowing that they are corrupt and unlikely to change. Therefore people cannot decide in their best interests, making external interference necessary. Perhaps, preventing hijacks could be the first step to tackling dynastic politics in India.
Preventing dynastic hijacks is a big challenge requiring regulating agencies to penetrate into party functioning. Hijacking could be met with new policies including outright baring of any leader’s relative from joining the party, secret ballot intra-party elections, discreet grievance addressal procedures, mandatory service before elevation, or validating the leadership endorsement of seniority or performance. Measures such as these can help reduce arbitrary induction or promotion of family members. Given the fact that corrupt dynasties in politics are very likely to remain corrupt and the fact that people do not make the best choices in their own interest; regulatory agencies like the Election Commission could guide public until laws are established. The Election Commission must have an impact that shall resonate among people, something like what financial regulatory agencies have on the stock market.
At the end of the day welfare of people are more important than few families. Therefore, if being unfair with a few families is necessary to prevent hijacks in future, this is fair enough. Actions taken to prevent hijacks would also put a check on the dynastic parties from freely promoting their clan members any further. Party members must educate each other on the perils of dynastic politics and ensure they resist attempts to hijack or promote dynastic politics within their party. Party functioning and reforms have significant bearing on the growth and development of the nation that is not easily perceived.
