- People closely following the fortunes of the political class in the country would be acutely aware of how monikers like nepotism and dynasties define the families associated with one or the other parties, irrespective of ideologies/philosophies. Why only politics but every other business venture at the micro level or critical economic verticals at a macro level are inundated with successive generations taking forward the legacy? Thus, we have examples of how a doctor wishes his progeny to take up medicine and in many cases hands over the successful enterprise to carry on with building the name.
PC: Pinerest
- Likewise, a successful businessman would wish his progeny to take over the reins and build the venture even stronger. No harm in encouraging the already established business houses to gain further strength. The example could apply to several endeavours associated with usual economic activities, including the entertainment industry. And politics is not averse to this phenomenon either. Of course, the politicians alongside civil society members often would not let go of an opportunity to berate the leaders for blatantly encouraging families to carry forward the legacy of a party. The moot point to ponder here is what is the harm in encouraging the family to pass on the baton in the political arena too.
- The hurly-burly of politics always demands public probity and it’s not easy to carve out a niche simply because the baton was passed on from one successful father to the wannabe son/daughter. Remember, there’s no substitution for hard work, even in politics. Now that the parliamentary elections are staring at us, the issue of family/dynastic politics is at the center stage on expected lines. As such, it is not surprising to note how Lalu combatively defends India’s political families in the face of relentless onslaught from the BJP denigrating the practice. Expectedly, the BJP has come out with vehement counters. More interesting is what’s not been said by either side.
PC: iStock
- First, succession battles and sibling rivalries have done family parties, especially at state levels, more harm than good. Nonetheless, second, voters have rarely rejected a party only because it was run by a family. Mind you, it’s no mean task to build a political party from scratch. Every Janata Dal splinter that grew into a powerful party had a First Family. Look not far from Gowdas, Paswans, Yadavs, whether Lalu or Mulayam, Patnaiks to Chautalas. Founders nurture parties like entrepreneurs to build empires. In both cases, the trick, and stumbles, lie in succession. Keeping the party within the family, for founders, is mostly a rational decision, aimed at minimizing the risks of losing control over what’s been built from years of hard work.
- But there’s hardly a mainland party for which succession hasn’t seen hiccups or hurdles. Take almost any political family. They’ve fought and split, but they’ve rarely self-destructed totally. Why’s that? Academics have argued families have ensured improved representation, for social categories marginalized in Indian politics, mainly women and the backward. A valid argument. Families have been the route to Parliament for many women. Irrefutably, families will remain the nub of India’s politics. Merited political heirs of the Family will thrive eventually, though a ready-made platform offers initial help to find footing.
