A few years ago, the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discovered that Indians have not yet rejected hereditary candidates. As a matter of fact, an astonishing 46 percent of voters said that they actually preferred politicians who hailed from dynasties. Nearly one in two Indians preferred candidates with a family background as they believed they were more likely to succeed. Nearly a sixth expected patronage. Till this disappointing mindset changes, it is unlikely that our politics will change.
When candidates seek employment with the United Nations, they are required to state in the application if they have any relative employed in the organization. Having a relative does not, ipso facto, disqualify them from applying – but the organization wishes to be aware of any such relationship, in order to ensure that the candidate does not take undue advantage of the relationship. A husband and wife are not permitted to work within the same department in the United Nations; it is a big bureaucracy and they can work in different agencies without a problem. Such rules exist to ensure merit-based selections. If that is the situation of an international civil servant, should the situation of a politician be any different? Let’s consider the situation with respect to states in India.
Often, the trouble with dynasty in a government is that the partnership between, say, a father who may be a former chief minister and his son, son-in-law or brother who becomes a chief minister by virtue of his connection with the patriarch is that it spells the ruination of whatever exists of inner party democracy.
Another ominous aspect to this dynastic system has been dramatized in a series of Bollywood films. The story is told of a patriarch who controls the state through the combined use of political power, a spineless police force and gangs of lumpen criminals who are often controlled by one or more of his sons. This ‘formula’ has surfaced in a number of Bollywood films from the more conventional variety to even arthouse films.
Supporters of dynasty will point out that in America too, they have dynasties. What about George Bush Senior and Junior? What about the Clintons? What about the Kennedys?
The thing about dynastic politics is that in India, it is by no means exceptional. It’s all over the place. That is how it differs from say the US. It is so very common that it is practically like an inheritance. If you are an important leader in any state in the country, you need not be a chief minister, but just an important leader, it can be expected that your children – at least one or two of them – will follow in your footsteps.
It’s strange but unless we place curbs on the number of people who can contest elections from a particular family, we endanger democracy itself, in its true meaning. Yet, if powerful families dominate our legislative assemblies to a great extent (and to a lesser extent our Parliament) why would anyone create such a law at the state or central level? Why on earth will the legislators create curbs on themselves? For a moment, let us leave aside that question and see what such a law could look like and what could be its salient effective provisions.
It could be called the ‘Law to Promote Participative Democracy and Prevent the Dominance of Political Families.’ To start with at the state level, it could have the following provisions.
A. No one can contest elections from a state assembly, if he has a member of his family who is already a legislator and also intends to contest elections.
B. There will be no bar on such a candidate contesting elections from another state.
What about elections to Parliament? It might seem extreme to prevent someone from contesting just because he has a relative who is a state legislator. We could use the following provisions to begin with:
C. No one can contest elections for the Lok Sabha from a state where he has a family member who is a sitting Member of Parliament, and also intends to contest elections.
The above hypothetical provisions will need tweaking but in general are reasonable, justifiable in the interests of truly representative democracy and do not constitute too severe a restriction. It will allow a family to have one Member of Parliament and one State legislator. A family can have more than one legislator provides they represent different state assemblies.
There will be supplemental rules to such legislation. For example, candidates will be required to furnish an affidavit at the time of filing nomination to the effect that they have no such relative in the categories mentioned. If a candidate files a false affidavit, this can be grounds for disqualification.
Isn’t all of this a pipe dream? What is the point of suggesting a law such as the above? Who is going to such legislation passed? Certainly not our Parliamentarians. The powerful families who already sit in Parliament will not wish to commit hara-kiri. Neither will any State legislature in the country agree to pass such a law for in the state assemblies there are still more legislators with close family ties than exist in parliament. In certain states, there are half a dozen legislators from the same family. Why would they wish to commit suicide?
Regardless, there is great merit in making such a proposal. Were an upright member of parliament to table such a bill, it has the potential to generate debate across television channels and the nation. It is true that the report of the Carnegie Foundation cited at the beginning of this chapter is somewhat disheartening, but if a proper campaign is launched, attitudes can start to change in a way that will ultimately be of great benefit to the nation.
Rajesh Talwar is a prolific author of 36 books across multiple genres and has worked for the United Nations for more than two decades across three continents.
