Dynasty damages democracy

The Nehru-Gandhis have maintained a vice-like grip over the Congress since Indira Gandhi split the party in 1969, sidelining the “Syndicate” comprising leaders like Kamaraj and Nijalingappa. The Gandhi family has controlled the cash-rich party ever since by electing themselves a president or nominating a loyalist to the post. The grip has never slackened.

Two years after Sonia Gandhi unceremoniously dumped Sitaram Kesri as Congress president in 1998 and appointed herself in his place, Jitendra Prasada (Jitin Prasada’s father) stood against her in 2000. He was roundly defeated by Congressmen enraged at his effrontery. Prasada died shortly thereafter, in January 2001, aged just 62.  

No one has since challenged Sonia Gandhi who, at 19 years, was the longest-serving Congress president in history. Jawaharlal Nehru, for example, was Congress president in independent India for a total of only four years, from 1951-54. Not surprisingly for a party steeped in feudalism, loyalists in the Congress have rallied around Rahul Gandhi. Delegates who backed Rahul in the “election” for Congress president were handpicked.

Ironically, Jitin Prasada, son of the only Congressman, Jitendra Prasada, who had the gumption to stand for election against Sonia Gandhi 17 years ago, moved a resolution in an Uttar Pradesh meet urging Rahul to take over as Congress president. Such is the sycophancy that courses through the Congress’ party’s feudal veins.

Dynasty is toxic. It damages democracy. In my book, I dealt with a particularly disingenuous myth spread by feudal leaders defending dynasty: “An argument advanced in favour of political dynasties in India is superficially seductive: the sons and daughters of lawyers become lawyers. So do doctors, businessmen, and actors. But professionals in medicine and law earn their degrees. Businessmen owe their position to specific financial shareholding. Actors are made and unmade every Friday.  The purpose of democracy is to widen voter choice — not narrow it. By choosing dynasts over merit, political parties limit the choice voters have and lower the overall level of competence in Parliament.”

Unless the Congress undergoes an internal catharsis, it will remain a feudal family fief. The outcome is bad governance, nepotism and incompetence. Following in the Congress’ malign footsteps, several political families established the lucrative business of dynastic political parties in the 1980s and 1990s. All without exception have spawned corruption, misgovernance, nepotism and communalism.

The roll call of dynastic parties is evocative: Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP), Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Farooq Abdullah’s National Conference (NC) to cite just a few. Regional parties like the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) in Telangana have installed family members in key positions. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) too has its own dynastic parties: Chandrababu Naidu’s Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). The BJP has promoted dynasts like Vasundhara Raje as well, though on a much smaller scale than the dynast-infested Congress.

When dynasty takes precedence over merit, the quality of governance suffers. Globally, the evidence is as damning as it is in India. Robert Mugabe, who was president of Zimbabwe for 37 consecutive years during which he devastated the country’s economy, wanted his wife Grace, accused of corruption and despotism, to succeed him as president days before he was removed from office in a choreographed army coup. In Cuba, Fidel Castro’s brother Raul has tried, with limited success, to reverse the ruinous socialism that has impoverished his island country.

North Korea, Pakistan and the sheikhdoms of the Middle East are other examples of how political families have curtailed their citizens’ freedoms, supported terrorism and imposed medieval laws to safeguard their dynastic cabals. The most successful democracies worldwide have long rejected dynasty in favour of meritocracy. In 241 years since Independence in 1776, only three families in the United States have produced more than one president: the Adams, Harrisons and Bushes. In Britain, the last dynast to head the government as prime minister was William Pitt the Younger in 1783.

To cleanse public life, dynasty must go. As Rahul becomes the sixth Nehru-Gandhi after Motilal, Jawaharlal, Indira, Rajiv and Sonia to head the Congress, he must reflect on just how regressive his ascension to the party presidency is. Rahul will have to brace himself for what could be bad news from Gujarat. After its rout in the Uttar Pradesh civic polls, including in The Family’s pocket borough of Amethi, a defeat in Gujarat will sting. It will also strengthen the hands of the tiny minority in the Congress that has had the courage to speak out against dynastic succession.

Rahul’s temple-hopping spree during the Gujarat campaign has meanwhile drawn criticism. Opposition leaders have questioned his faith. Religion should not matter but in public life, as former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said, it unfortunately does. Ambiguity over religion can play on the minds of voters in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh who tend to take matters of faith seriously. On December 18, when votes are counted in Gujarat and Himachal, Rahul will begin his presidency on a grim note a week before inclusive India celebrates Christmas.

The writer is author of The New Clash of Civilizations: How The Contest Between America, China, India and Islam Will Shape Our Century.