The dynastic sheen in politics

In a conversation with a dear friend, an accomplished business journalist who had been active in the campaign for one of the independent candidates in South Mumbai, I was surprised at her take on the election results.

Whilst most people heaved a sigh of relief, she was acutely disturbed by the prospect of what she called dynastic rule, particularly the triumph of Rahul Gandhi. Her position was that dynasty was incompatible with democracy and that politicians should succeed on merit rather than family background and connections.

It is interesting that this belief which is unremarkable and in most spheres of society welcome is allied with a strong sense that clean and honest people should enter politics. It raises a moot question as to whether clean, educated, modernising politicians will come from the ranks by dint of merit or from the political dynasties.  In India it is more likely than not, from dynasties. 

Look at Rahul Gandhi’s remarkable achievements.  It was he who took the decision to go it alone in UP and Bihar, a gamble which paid off and how. A year or two ago Rahul was considered a bit of a clown prince, someone out of his depth in the Machiavellian world of Indian politics. It is only now that he is considered a serious player.  Much has been commented about the transparent sincerity with which he sought to reach out to the common man, but at the end of the day he is the son of Rajiv Gandhi and the great grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru.  But merit has played some role — after all he won the election for his party.

Indians love a sense of continuity of background, dare I say, pedigree. These factors determine who you marry and who you do business with. The fact that your father was something helps in all spheres of life. If we are not a feudal society, we are not a meritocratic society either.  Even America has political dynasties. If George W Bush was not such a disaster there was a strong likelihood of Jeb Bush running for president, the Clintons, the Kennedys are all political dynasties and that too in the most meritocratic society on earth. England has also had a tradition of dynasties — in Harold Macmillan’s cabinet in the 1950s, 11 members were related to each other.  So there is no necessary incompatibility between democracy and dynasty. 

Rahul may or may not become prime minister. What he has achieved is to galvanise his party and the country, reminiscent of his father in 1984.  In this regard, many of my friends who supported and voted for independent candidates do not really understand democracy. Political parties are key. They provide the foot soldiers, raise issues and educate the public.

The alternative to dynastic parties are cadre-based parties. The BJP with its Sangh Parivar and the Communists are examples. Neither prospect of which is  appetising as the choice is between regressive religious politics and minority bashing or economic stagnation and Mafiosi tendencies. There are also caste-based parties and regional ones who are not so toxic as they have no overarching national appeal.

It is not sufficient to trumpet modernity and development if you don’t have a wow factor, and, invariably, family is that. Consider the  late prime minister, PV Narasimha Rao. Seminal economic and foreign policy reforms were ushered by him but he remains half forgotten. 

So paradoxically, the modernisers are not going to be the Meera Sanyals, rootless wonders, in their chiffon saris but the scions of dynasties such as Rahul, Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Omar Abdullah. These are a breed of politicians who are westernised, articulate, educated and clean. But behind them is a mythology every bit as resonant to young India as that of the Ramayana. For many young people, Nehru, the Mahatma and even Indira Gandhi remain political gods, immortal and part of India’s oral history, lending legitimacy to the new order.

The writer is a Mumbai-based lawyer