It would appear so, if one watched the analysis of the Indian elections by the electronic media. The point being made is that in the Congress party, which got the maximum number of seats in the recently concluded national elections, many youngsters who won, had some political connection. So, the conclusion being drawn is the key party in the world’s largest deomcracy is ”undemocratic”.
It is well known that the Congress, largely, some regional parties and other national parties in India (even the BJP) do have the tradition of leaders passing on the mantle to the next generation. Also because the Gandhis have virtually controlled the party for decades, there is a feeling, not wihout basis, that if you are not a Gandhi, you cannot run the party.
In this context, Rahul Gandhi’s strategy of declining a position in the Cabinet, for good reason, has come as a breath of fresh air ( as one analysis said, it is strategy not sacrifice, but it still helps improve perception). His much publicised intent to democratize the Congress is an important step to open up politics to a larger section of people. At the same time, if you look at today’s youth brigade (most of whom may have some political connection or lineage) many of them have impressive qualifications and deserve their place.
Like the son or daughter of a business person having a flair for business, or a musician’s child taking to music, or children of sportspeople or actors following their parents’ footsteps, politics as a career may also be “inherited” provided the next generation has the necessary skills – examples include Sachin Pilot or Jyotiraditya Scindia. The last is very important. In the past, it was sufficient that you were just a son or a daughter, niece or nephew, of a politician. That is changing, it needs to change more. Also politics needs to be made more attractive for an average Indian to pursue as a career. Today, most middle class Indians are wary of entering politics for many reasons. Thus, Rahul Gandhi’s intent assumes great significance and if he does succeed, that is one way to reduce the domination of political families in the long run.
At the same time, I think in India, we need to adopt an approach that works for us- if we do have a tradition of family based professions; let us take advantage of that. However, we also need to work hard to eliminate the negative associations – example, in the past, and to an extent even now, family run businesses imply lack of transparency and command and control structures and politicians who have family backing sometimes end up as mediocres who have deprived a more capable candidate.
Popularity: 6% [?]
To continue the point which Sudha has made, the latest Outlook ran an entire cover story on the DMK family saga.Makes for an interesting and thought provoking read. Some one like Dayanidhi Maran did a great job as the Telecom minister, last time around. So, when the people are capable, family connections or no family connections, they should become a part of the Indian political scene. 5 years ago, the media ran amok pointing out how the Congress had lost in most places where RahulGandhi had campaigned.5 years on, he has made all the right moves.Did some one say, it runs in the family? You bet, it does.
I think most Indian families that have traditionally been in politics, also have the means to make a career out of politics.
An example that comes to mind is that of Karthi, Chidambaram’s son.
That is definitely a significant factor – I am not sure how many people from a middle class background will be able to commit themselves to politics without the financial backing that traditional politician families have.
But then again, to relate to Anita’s blog on Corporates in Politics, will we see a trend of openly ’sponsored candidates’? Who knows?
On the point on corporate candidates,unless we have a model like the US, where we have specific roles for captains from industry in the government, I do not foresee any major change to today’s situation. Contesting the Lok Sabha elections requires a lot of commitment and resources, and most often people like Meera Sanyal or Capt Gopinath only end up splitting votes, depsite the right intentions.
While I agree that performers should be in, family or no family, the fact is that creating a family hegemony is probably a complete de-motivator for performers within a political party. Knowing that family members will always lead the race for the top job, regardless of credentials, is only going to create a larger culture of sycophancy.
Agreed. But today we are actually seeing a genuine effort to move away from the family dominated culture. Moreover, I do not see performers shying away from parties which are supposedly not democratic- look at people like Shashi Tharoor, or even earlier, Dr Manmohan Singh.
The real issue is we need to have strong alternate political parties at the national level- that is what will pave the way for a more robust and egalitarian political system.
There definitely seems to be a move away from family dominated culture. The outlook of Indian politics is changing slowly, but in the right direction. The attitude of the Indian public towards politicians is also changing – politicians with a strong track record are being voted to power irrespective of the parties they belong to, examples are Shiela Dixit, Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar. I feel that like there is a retirement age in other services, politics too should have a retirement age. The right mix of experienced leaders with young blood is what I think is needed.