Dynastic Politics is Against Democratic Principles

 

“Congress lost its importance not because of one or two reasons. It happened over years. If Congress has to regain its importance in Indian politics, it should come out of dynastic politics”.

 

This is the view not expressed by any BJP leader. Neither it is made by any serious political commentator. This is the opinion of Sharmishtha Mukherjee, daughter of former President Pranab Mukherjee, who spent his life for the Congress party. Sharmishtha Mukherjee referred to the Gandhi dynasty, which has been at the helm of affairs for decades. Despite the continuous decline, Congress leaders are not in the mood to address the issue. G 23, a group of party leaders, who tried to raise their voices, was sidelined systematically. Elections were held and Mallikarjun Kharge was elected as party president but the Gandhi family continued to call the shots. Whatever happened after G 23 episode, was a cosmetic step, without having much-needed serious surgery.

 

However, Congress is not the only party, which is run by dynastic politics. We have more than a dozen families, which are running political parties like a private limited company. The majority of these political parties/ families have a regional base and they are holding respective states for ransom for their agenda instead of overall development. Congress has to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs as it is the main culprit in glorifying and legitimizing dynastic politics by its actions. Current is the sixth generation of Gandhi, which is at the top post.

 

Congress is considered as a national party but dynastic politics has plagued several states. Some of the prominent examples are Jammu and Kashmir (Abdullah and Mufti Mohmmad Sayeed), Punjab (Badal Family) Haryana (Devilal), Uttar Pradesh (Mulayam, Charan Singh Chaudhari, Mayawati) Bihar (Lalu Prasad Yadav), Odisha (Patnaik), West Bengal (Mamata Banerjee), Andhra Pradesh (N T Rama Rao and Reddy), Telangana ( K C Chandrashekhar Rao), Maharashtra (Thackeray and Pawar) and Tamil Nadu (Karunanidhi).

 

In many states, the third generation is running the party. In other words, these families are enjoying political power for more than 50 years. In the process, several states are lagging in the development as family interests overpower state interests. Take the case of Bihar, it continues to be a ‘Bimaru’ state mainly because of Lalu Yadav. Abdullah and Sayyed families are always blamed for sheltering anti-India sentiments in the border state. Karunanidhi, Stalin, and Udhayanidhi Maran run the political shows in Tamil Nadu for the consecutive third generation. In Maharashtra, Pawar and Thackeray families are dominating state politics for five decades and are holding the state for ransom.

 

These are some of the examples while the situation in other dynasty politics affected states continue to be the same. Significantly, all these political parties are affected by family disputes, leaving their supporters in utter confusion. The Yadav family in Uttar Pradesh, the Pawar and Thackeray families in Maharashtra, the Lalu Yadav family in Bihar, Karunanidhi family in Tamil Nadu are some of examples this connection. In the process, these family-run parties get divided into various factions, which is never a sign of healthy democracy. This division is like a dispute over property in the family. Division in the family takes place out of ego and a clash over the choosing of a descendent. It has never any ideological connotation.

 

In the case of Congress, the dynastic rule is not restricted to the top level alone. It has percolated down to ground level. As a result, Congress has become like a stagnated pond. Double trouble for Congress is that it has no ideology to attract the younger generation and the new generation is not ready to join the party because of dynastic design. The leaders, who had potential, were systematically marginalized in Congress as it never wanted challenge to the established leadership.

 

Thanks to the lack of new recruitment, Congress and other dynastic parties, have lost their ideological foundation. Taking advantage of the vacuum, leftists or liberals, have penetrated all these parties to run their ideological agenda. Liberals and leftists have adopted this way as their ideology has lost relevance in the past few decades. Dynastic parties fail to understand this reality as they are only aware of family interests and are far away from political ideology. As a result, these political parties have become carriers of divisive politics. Caste and language are driving forces for these political parties in the absence of any political ideology.

 

Fortunately, voters have realized the ill effects of dynastic politics. Barring a few exceptions, voters have rejected dynastic politics for the past few years. Take the case of Congress. It has lost popular support for a long time. Wherever people have some alternative, they do not choose Congress again. Congress has been losing elections in states including Nagaland (1988), Orrisa (1995), Goa (1994), Tripura (1988), West Bengal (1972), and Tamil Nadu (1962). Congress has continuously lost elections in states like Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh for a long time. As said by Sharmishtha Mukherjee, dynastic politics is a major reason for Congress’s pathetic situation.

 

The 2024 Lok Sabha election is going to be a struggle for survival for the dynastic parties, which are mainly regional or semi-regional. An experiment like I. N.D.I.A. is an attempt of such regional and family-driven political parties to stop their rapid decline. Dynastic politics is nothing less than feudal politics. It is like a monarchy, where heads of state are selected hereditarily and not based on merit or democratic process. This is absolutely in contrast to the democratic principle. Dynastic politics and democracy can never go hand in hand. Dynastic parties want people to be their slaves. They do not want people to make decisions independently. Dynastic politics is a new form of feudal politics, where freedom of choice remains shrunk.

 

Anti-BJP political parties cite some examples in the ruling party where sons or daughters are in active politics. But such examples are shallow and fundamentally different. BJP is not a party, which is run by any family. It is the only party, which periodically conducts mandatory internal elections. BJP has a series of leaders, who have reached top positions from the grassroots level. We do not have any similar examples in non-BJP parties, which are not in a position to look beyond family interests. National interests do not matter to them, which is the real concern.