Dynastic Politics

We are proud to be citizens of this largest democracy and our pride gets wings as we are
entitled by the Constitution to cast our votes in forming a people’s government. Though
this reality is phenomenal, in the context of the political system, Indian politics is very
much personified as the dynastic nature of politics has been gaining ground since
Independence. India may not be the only nation seeking condolence on this fact, but this
multi-dimensional society is losing credibility from the leaders as they become secure of
their authority in political succession.

Dynastic politics is jeopardizing the concept of democratic socialism assured by the

Constitution and it simultaneously aggravates corruption and fascism in the Indian
political system.

Nehru-Gandhi family may be deemed to be the pioneer of dynastic politics, which has
been very much predominant, but the Congress is not solely the paragon. Many other
national and regional parties practice the same. It can be cited from every part of the
nation – the Mulayam Singh-Yadav family (SP) in Uttar Pradesh; Karunanidhi family
(DMK) in Tamil Nadu; in Bihar, Ram Vilas Paswan’s family (LJP) and Lalu Prasad
Yadav’s family (RJD). The Pilot family, Raje family, Mirdha family, Scindia family of
Rajasthan. In Karnataka, it is former PM HD Deve Gowda and his two grandsons in the
JD(S) who fought the recent Lok Sabha elections. Last week, BSP president Mayawati
appointed her brother Anand Kumar the party’s vice-president and named her nephew
Akash Anand as its national coordinator. Odisha politics has been dominated by one
Patnaik family for over decades now.

This list can go on and on. While the BJP may satirize the Congress for dynastic politics,
a recent study by researchers at Harvard University and the University of Mannheim
shows that the BJP too is not that different. If the Congress had 36 dynastic MPs in the
Lok Sabha since 1999, the BJP had 31.

One may argue here, if there is no wrong for a doctor father to aspire his children to
follow his footsteps taking up the same profession in future, a business man’s child to
take forward his business legacy to the next level, an Army man’s son would one day add
another sacrifice to the sovereignty of India, then why don’t we suppress our endurance
to explode resounding aspirations of political leaders to see their children as flag bearers
of their political legacy? Because running a nation is not merely a profession, it demands
more. There has to be a true competent candidate to shoulder the gravity of
responsibility of governing a country like India. How could one be conferred with power
and wealth just because of one’s pre-destined birth in a particular family?

Our political leaders are now unable to feel the nerve of the present day India. They
forget it is a ‘Young India’, where the young generation dominates the larger population
and they don’t show their utmost loyalty to the historical narrative as it has been
narrated for decades. They have resentment that resulted in the recently concluded Lok
Sabha elections where dynastic politics has been drastically subsided. These parties have
eventually been compelled to concede that their old-fashioned quixotic strategies to woo
the people on their family cards are no longer able to push them through the elections.
Such bitter acceptance was recently expressed when Rahul Gandhi announced that he is
firmly determined to abdicate his chairmanship of the grand old Congress party,
indicating even none from his family would continue this responsibility.

Without being only an armed-chair critic, if we consider constructive criticism, we may

come to a point that these leaders are not completely responsible for their family
upliftment, rather we common people eventually make it happen. Despite our personal
preferences, we follow leaders’ kids very closely, and we indeed desire them as our next
super leaders. We want them so desperately that we unknowingly stimulate their
aspirations along with putting pressure on them to outshine their family legacy with a
substantial deliberation. Our loyalty towards our leaders is so blind-folded that we
avowedly bow in reverence before anyone from their families as our next masters. We
even compare them with their family predecessors, and if found a little less capable, we
don’t think discreetly but criticize them harshly.

The entire nation must ask these self-proclaimed leaders: Are they true imposing
personalities accompanied by high intellectual qualities? Are they efficient
administrators? Do they possess leadership qualities that India requires today? And
most importantly, do they belong to every inch of this land irrespective of religions,
caste, language, and culture?

This great nation deserves more, there must be much desirable uniformity in
opportunities practised in the society and to redefine the Indian politics to admire a true
radiant prosperous nation ceasing all impurities. True democracy would prevail only
when people from all walks of life will get equal opportunity to demonstrate their
potential in making this nation great and there wouldn’t be any concentration of power
and wealth limited to a few

The term “democratic dynasties” in India usually brings to mind the Nehru-
Gandhi family, whose members have occupied the Prime Ministership and
led the Congress party for most of India’s independent history. But this
book is about a different sort of political dynasty, less famous than the
Nehru-Gandhis, but more important for understanding contemporary
democratic politics
in India.

One such dynasty is the Chavan family. Ashok Shankarrao Chavan was
elected to India’s 2014 parliament from Nanded in the state of Maharashtra. He
is the son of Shankarrao Bhavrao Chavan, who, in a political career that
spanned almost five decades, was an MP (Member of Parliament), an MLA
(Member of the Legislative Assembly) from Maharashtra, Chief Minister of
Maharashtra, and a cabinet minister in the national government.

The elder Chavan, initially trained as an advocate, won his first election, as
an MLA, in 1957, a decade after India became democratic. When the younger
Chavan came of age, his father, by then an MP, resigned his seat, to which his
son succeeded in a by-election. The father did not exit politics when his son
entered. He relocated to the indirectly elected upper house of the Indian
parliament, and continued to hold ministerial positions in the national cabinet.
His son followed in his footsteps in the meantime, eventually also becoming
Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Shankarrao Bhavrao Chavan died in 2004. But
other Chavan family members now active in electoral politics. Ashok Chavan’s
wife, Ameeta Chavan, was elected to the legislative assembly in 2014. His now
estranged brother-in-law Bhaskar Rao Patil has been a multiple-term MP from
the family seat of Nanded.

The Chavans of Nanded and other families like them, such as the Reddys of
Kadapa, the Naiks of Thane, the Yadavs of Saifai, the Abdullahs of Ganderbal,
the Gogois of Kaliabor, the Dhumals of Hamirpur, or the Sinhas of Hazaribagh,
are the type of dynasty that this book is about. These dynasties are
found in virtually all parties, regions, and social groups. Their founders belong
not to an old pre-democratic ruling class, but a new elite created through the
democratic process. Their members occupy not just the top offices in legislatures
and parties but also secondary and tertiary positions burrowed deep

Notwithstanding the history of mistrust and scepticism between different regional parties, there have
been some significant eff orts by regional parties to join coalitions to govern at the centre. The first
success at interrupting the continuous rule of the dynastic Congress Party was with the creation of the
Janata Party in 1977 under politician and activist Jayaprakash Narayan to oppose the national
emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. The Janata Party was an amalgam of political parties opposed
to the national emergency. In the general elections held in 1977, it defeated the Congress to form the
government under the leadership of Morarji Desai. However, this government lasted barely three
years, beleaguered as it was by internal conflicts, intra-party rivalries, and shifting alliances and
loyalties. By 1980, the Indira Gandhi-led Congress was back in power; the failed experiment of the
Janata Party only reinforced the value attached to dynastic stability according to observers.

Similar efforts to loosen the hold of dynastic succession characterized the creation of the National
Front (1989–91) and United Front (1996–98) governments. Sadly, like the Janata Party government
in 1977, they too were short lived, unable to transcend the political betrayals and administrative
incompetence that have marked the Third Front governments, formed together with the BJP.

Dynastic rule may appear rather more stable than the ad hoc nature of these hastily cobbled together
alliances, but by its very nature, it gives political inequality free rein. A parallel can be drawn between
political inequality and economic inequality in India where the first is the mirror image of the second.
Just as politics is dominated by a few dynasties, Indian business continues to be dominated by a few
well-connected families. This perpetuates the political corruption, perfected during the era of
industrial licensing that was designed to influence government policy in favour of big business houses.
As in developed countries, lobbying by businesses continues to influence policy in a manner that
deepens economic inequality.
These two trends of increasing concentration of wealth and dynastic succession in India further
reinforce each other as the cost of succeeding in politics skyrockets.

The Upside of Dynastic Politics

But, as always in India, there are complexities and nuances to be considered, and dynastic politics can
play a paradoxically inclusive role. This happens by politically empowering marginalized communities
in Indian society. The focus here is on two such social groups: backward castes and women.

There is a high incidence of family connections among MPs belonging to the constitutionally notified
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/and Other Backward Classes. Political aspirants from these
communities struggle to find representation in politics through normal channels. In a sense, dynastic
ties appear to perform a similar function as quotas for members of under-represented social groups.
In the 2009 national elections, dynastic MPs from the general category were 1.3 times as likely to get
re-elected as non-dynastic MPs from the same category. But dynastic MPs from backward castes were
almost twice as likely to get re-elected as non-dynastic backward-caste MPs.

A second major positive impact of dynastic politics has been the facilitation of women in political roles
globally. Patriarchal structures and discrimination against women are embedded in all societies and
cultures, and the difference is only one of degree. Even in liberal Western societies such as the U.S.
and the UK, it is monumentally more difficult for women politicians to rise relative to their male
counterparts. This is why Hillary Clinton’s ‘character’ was scrutinized and questioned much more than
that of Donald Trump, or any other man running for president in the past. In fact, not only was she
held accountable for her own actions as Secretary of State, but also those of her husband before and
during his term as president 16 years earlier.

While there was wide consensus in the international community, at different times, to abolish slavery
and colonialism, there has been perpetual resistance to end gender discrimination in all spheres of
public life, including politics. For example, in the exclusionary political structure in the US, a society
with a history of embedded racism, non-white men were granted the right to vote in 1870, 50 years
before it was extended to white women, in 1920.

Thus, while it is mostly men who are beneficiaries of dynasty, it remains one of the only ways for
women to enter, and sometimes rise, in politics. In the current Lok Sabha, 130 MPs—that is 23 per
cent—come from political families. Out of a total of 62 women, 25–40 per cent—come from dynastic
families. Also, only 11.3 per cent of the MPs are women, compared to the global average of women’s
representation in parliaments, which stands at 22 per cent. What is more, even after being under
consideration for 20 years, the male-dominated Indian parliament has failed to pass the Women’s
Reservation Bill due to unprecedented opposition that is based on the apprehension that women
elected from the reserved constituencies would represent male relatives by proxy, as if that argument
did not apply to male descendants.

Since democracy must evolve in a social system, there can be no one size-fits-all model. Theories often
fail, especially when they are forced onto different societies that may valorize different objectives and
to different degrees of priority. The dynastic principle within democracy operates in developed and
developing democracies, occasionally widening the representation of previously excluded groups, and
sometimes yielding stability at difficult moments in a nation’s history. The Indian experience shows
that if democracy can be understood as a process, and not a product, then there is hope for more
representative forms of governance to continue to evolve.

The causes of dynastic politics in the Indian parliament lie, we argue, in the
structure of two of India’s contemporary democratic institutions – the state and
political parties. Two features of these institutions encourage the emergence of
dynastic politics in India – the large returns associated with state office and the
organizational weakness of political parties. The returns associated with state
office ensure that the families of politicians will want to enter politics. The
organizational weakness of political parties ensures that they are likely to get
tickets (party nominations) when they do. Once dynastic candidates obtain a
party’s endorsement, voters must determine whether or not to support them.
But the choices that voters make, and therefore the role they play in producing
electoral dynasticism, are circumscribed by the structures of state and party.

Building on this argument, we propose a rethinking of the simplistic view

that dynastic politics is a violation of democracy. The primary objection to
dynastic politics in a modern democracy is that it introduces a form of birthbased
exclusion among elected representatives that is antithetical to democracy.
There is no doubt that dynastic politics in India is indeed associated with
this illegitimate form of exclusion: dynastic MPs in India, when assessed
according to some standard indicators, are not better qualified for politics than
their non-dynastic counterparts, but parties give them a leg up anyway simply
on the strength of their family ties. Further, those who benefit most from this
preference among parties for birth-based attributes are Hindu “Forward Caste”
males. In this sense, dynastic politics in India is associated with a double form
of exclusion; first by creating a birth-based ruling class, and second by
amplifying the representation of dominant groups within this ruling class.

But paradoxically, dynastic politics has also had an inclusive effect. It has
provided a channel for representation for members of social categories – women,
Backward Castes, Muslims, and youth – which do not find, or have not found, a
space in politics through normal channels. In this sense, dynastic ties in India
have performed the same function as quotas for members of underrepresented
social groups. It is significant that the two subaltern groups among which
dynasticism among Indian MPs is highest – women and Muslims – do not have
the benefit of quotas. Those subaltern groups – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes – who have mandated representation through quotas are less dynastic.
This does not mean that dynastic politics is a normatively desirable channel to
bring about political inclusion. But in an unequal polity in which there are
already high barriers to the entry of new groups into politics, dynastic politics
has become an informal, second-best, means of overcoming some of them.
Indeed, in such a society, not having dynastic ties can itself serve as a form of
Inequality

India is by no means unique or even extreme among modern democracies in

the fact or degree of dynastic politics in its national legislature. Some democracies
have an institutionalized space for dynasties, in the form of a constitutional
monarchy (e.g. in the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Bhutan,
Thailand, Lesotho, or Morocco) or sub-national kingdoms (such as the
Buganda in Uganda or Ashanti in Ghana) or a reserved space for aristocrats
in the legislature (such as the House of Lords in the UK or the House of Chiefs
in Zambia). In others, dynastic politicians have made their way into positions
of power through the electoral process, even when no space is formally set
aside for them.

India lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of democracies

for which comparable data on dynasticism in the legislature are available.
(We are not concerned in this book with dynasticism in the executive, which
has not so far been studied in a comparative framework and may be associated
with different patterns). This spectrum is bounded at one extreme by the
Philippines, in which fully half of all Congresspersons in 2007 followed a
relative into elected office (Querubin 2010, Mendoza 2012), and at the other
by Canada, in which 3% of the House of Commons in 2011 was dynastic
(Smith 2012). Japan, Iceland, and Ireland, in which between a third and a
fourth of elected legislators in 2009 were dynastic, occupy the upper half of
the spectrum along with India. Belgium, Israel, the United States, and Norway,
in which the proportion of dynastic legislators ranged between 6% and 11%
in a comparable time period, occupy the lower half

Chandra, Kanchan. "Democratic dynasties." Democratic dynasties: State, party and family in contemporary
Indian politics (2016): 12-55.
Hussain, Zahid. "Dynastic politics." URL: http://www. dawn. com/news/736761/dynastic-politics-2.(Accessed
2nd June, 2013) (2012).

Mitra, Subrata K. "India: dynastic rule or the democratisation of power?." Third World Quarterly 10.1 (1988):
129-159.

Aftab, Noor. Why Do Dynastic Politics Continue to Thrive in South Asia?. Diss. School of Oriental and African
Studies (University of London, 2018.

Spary, Carole. "Female political leadership in India." Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 45.3 (2007): 253-
277.