Email
Print
ShareIt is almost impossible to talk objectively about Rahul Gandhi these days. Any dispassionate analysis gets bogged down in arguments about the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and to democrats, that word is enough to send them into paroxysms of anger. The easy, and lazy way out is then to point to his many apparent failings -- too naïve, too inexperienced and now, that he has no impact on electoral results -- and be done with it.
Analysing young Rahul can wait, but it is time to examine the question of dynastic succession a little closely, especially since visions of a dynastic succession are also emerging in the US. As the latest entrant to politics from his family, Rahul Gandhi of course epitomises the idea of the dynasty. There are other families with a fairly long dynastic tradition, but the Nehru-Gandhis have been the most successful and therefore the most criticised.
But look around and you will see the dynastic principle in full cry in almost every political party, barring perhaps, the Left ones. The Congress of course does it with aplomb and without any discomfort-Sachin Pilot, Milind Deora and Jyotiraditya Scindia are the most visible examples, but there are many more.
In the BJP, for example, Jaswant Singh's son Manvendra is an MP and soon after Pramod Mahajan's murder, the party looked towards his son Rahul as a putative youth leader till his abrupt downfall in a drugs scandal.
If the large parties are like listed corporations, the regional parties are more like small and medium enterprises, where leaders worry that the outfits they started and nurtured will fall in the hands of others, so they set up a succession plan fairly early. Mulayam Singh Yadav, Farokh Abdullah, Sharad Pawar have all brought their children into politics without being challenged; when someone like Dayanidhi Maran raises his head to show his independence, his mentor Karunanidhi, realising that it would adversely affect his own sons, quickly swats him down.
Nor is this limited to India or indeed South Asia, where every country has been ruled by brothers, sons or daughters of previous Prime Ministers and Presidents. In Japan, Makiko Tanaka became foreign minister 25 years after her father was Prime Minister, while in the Phillipines President Gloria Macapagal was one too and in the world's most powerful democracy, United States, there are several political dynasties. If Hillary Clinton wins two terms, the country would have been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years, with a few Bushes still waiting in the wings.
The dynastic disease has hit other fields too. It was always so in business, never mind if the company is a publicly listed one. Now it is almost impossible to join the movies (scores of examples), become an artist (many rising stars) or even get a book published without mummy or daddy already having carved out a path.
That just an accident of birth should give someone a foot in the door while others, perhaps equally if not more talented, languish outside militates against the spirit of egalitarianism. A famous surname not only opens doors but also ensures a support system not available to other, lesser mortals; would a non-star son, for example, get a chance to continue in the film industry despite 17 consecutive flops? Why should the chief ministership of a state go to the inexperienced wife of a politician while he fights corruption charges?
But there is an obverse side to it too. Being born into a famous father or mother often provides opportunities to observe the family profession closely and pick up skills and contacts not immediately available to an outsider. And most of all, it gives a comfort level to the various constituents who feel an instant connect to the scion like they did with the parent.
Consider for example that children of politicians get voted in, after all; does not imply that voters are fools who get taken in? That would be an undemocratic thing to say. One explanation often offered is that as a people we are still in feudal mode; but then what about modern democracies like the US, where there are no centuries old musty traditions to speak of?
The fact is that no parent would give up an opportunity to give a leg up to his or her child. But eventually it is up to the children to prove themselves and up to the public -- as voters, shareholders, movie audiences or whatever -- to support them. There are many cases of children who flopped badly despite getting the best backing from their parents; the movie business is littered with them; equally, many politicians or stars made it on their own, without fond parents behind them. A Rahul Gandhi, for all his political legacy, will not be of much use to his party if he cannot deliver votes and keep the party together. He might have got the breaks, but he has a tough act to follow.
Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net.
