The ‘rise and fall’ of powerful families is a common phenomenon around the world but differs in our landscape. Parties here overcome transience of power and normalise hereditary succession. Thankfully, things are changing
The “rise and fall” of powerful families in democracies around the world is a known phenomenon. From the Roosevelts and Clintons of the US to the Shinawatras of Thailand — most democracies are characterised by the presence of prominent political families. They seek to perpetuate and consolidate their control across all pillars of power — legislative, executive, judiciary and the media. Donn M Kurtz has aptly elucidated how democratic politics becomes “something of a family business.” Not surprising then, that in a recent statement, PC Chacko, a Congress leader, went on to say, “…the first family of India is truly the first family. India is obliged to them…”.
The expansion and consolidation of familial political power in post-20th century democracies emulates the intent and ambitions of monarchies, autocracies and the so-called proletarian dictatorships that preceded them. But seldom do powerful families in modern democracies succeed in extending the longevity of short-term acquisition of power into dynasties spanning several generations. The reason behind this inability, despite focussed and powerful efforts, is the fundamental transience of power. The entropy of this transience is exponentially heightened in democracies by every single vote cast by individual voters. Global democratic experience indicates that conscious and informed individual action is the antidote to the tyranny of dynastic politics.
Somehow political parties in India have succeeded in overcoming this transience of power and neutralising the will of the voter. This was made possible by the evident paradox that is the Indian representative democracy — over a billion people enjoy some semblance of political equality bestowed upon them by the founding fathers, yet the higher echelons of power have forever been beyond their reach. Those at the top project a mirage of democracy marked by political freedom for all. But to the less fortunate at the bottom, it is nothing more than an oligarchy with no avenues of access to the towering institutions of power.
It is astounding how a few families carried out a silent coup and placed themselves at the focus of political power for over half a century. It is equally unfortunate that as a nation, we have silently accepted this political enslavement, which has held our aspirations hostage. The explicit expectation of Chacko that a nation of 1.3 billion people should be “obliged” to a “family” reeks of vain arrogance and worse, a sense of dynastic entitlement. Our forefathers won this country its freedom from the most powerful empire in the pre-WWII era through unimaginable courage and sacrifice. So why did the deceitful and clandestine replacement of the ‘British Raj’ by ‘Parivar Raj’ go unopposed?
This is a question that warrants both a sincere personal contemplation and a vocal political conversation. Were we as a nation so trusting and naïve that we let a few naamdaar families pull the wool over our eyes? Is it a consequence of systematic and thorough indoctrination into political fatalism that we have been deceived into believing that nothing will change and so nothing is worth aspiring for? More importantly, it must be debated how we can overcome these ideological shackles.
Thankfully, such debates are happening, and with an increasing frequency. The entire conversation revolving around the naamdaar-kaamdar dichotomy did hammer home valid and necessary questions of individual merit of a political leader — as a party worker, a statesman and a visionary. More recently, the dynasty-mukt Bharat campaign struck a chord with the citizens and was trending on Twitter.
Although it is not the first time that dynastic politics has been questioned, there are some stark qualitative differences that make recent opposition to familial domination of power more potent. The JP Movement was arguably the first mass movement that opposed dynastic politics. But many stalwarts of the JP movement created their own political dynasties at the sub-national level such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar. Further, when aspirations were sacrificed at the altar of family politics, leaders opted to break away from the parent party and form splinter groups. The Trinamool Congress formed by Mamata Banerjee in the late 1990s is an example. These leaders chose not to stay within the parent political organisation and fight for its democratic functioning. Perhaps they sought to create their own hereditary political fiefdoms, replicating the dynastic principle of the parent organisation in the splinter party.
Since these influential “victims” of dynastic politics did not agitate to create greater awareness and mobilise people against it, a movement against the undemocratic idea of “first family” did not gain momentum. What’s worse is that it normalised the practice, making it acceptable to the societal value structure. Indian society had only recently unburdened itself from the despotism of countless princely States and was still struggling to balance the rigidity of the hierarchies of caste and religion with the new-found avenues of individual mobility. An implicit yet clear message by most political outfits that hereditary power succession is acceptable in a democratic nation presented an insurmountable ideological challenge.
Thankfully, things are changing. After being denied the opportunity to democratically challenge the ascension of Rahul Gandhi as the president of the Congress, Shehzad Poonawalla did not take the conventional routes available to him — launch his own party, join a political opponent, or play the card of minority victimisation. Instead, he launched a fierce attack on dynastic politics itself, spearheading the dynasty-mukt Bharat campaign. But for such campaigns to transform into popular movements, it is vital that the despotic notion of “first family” is countered with democratic ideals. There should also be no room for personal attack on political leaders, for it is the undemocratic idea of “family first” that is to be fought, not its instantiations that pervade the political spectrum.
(The writer is a researcher)
