Author: Tavleen Singh
Publication: Afternoon Despatch & Courier
Date: May 11, 2006
Introduction: In Mumbai, during the last assembly
elections, a fashion designer was pitted against a veteran Congress politician
who had done little for his constituents but people were forced to vote for
him as they had no idea who the fashion designer was
Sonia Gandhi's campaign for re-election from
Rae Bareilli brought back for me memories of why, ever since I became a political
journalist, I have opposed dynastic democracy. Back then there was only one
dynastic political family at the national level so I was accused of being
anti the Nehru-Gandhi parivar. There are still those in the media who call
me a Sonia-baiter', something I have never understood the meaning of. The
truth is I am opposed to anyone being in politics who represents a family
and not a political idea. Whether it is Stalin, waiting in the wings to take
over from Papa Karunanidhi, Mulayam Singh Yadav's son waiting to inherit his
father's political party or Rahul Gandhi waiting to inherit the Congress Party
from his Mummyji. Hereditary democracy used to be a Congress speciality but
is now a disease that aftlicts all our political parties except those of Marxist
persuasion.
The phenomenon is so widespread that if you
spend a few moments gazing down into the Lok Sabha from the press gallery
you will notice that nearly all our leaders of the future are those who have
inherited their political career from either Daddyji or Mummyji. Here is a
short list. Omar Abdullah, Sachin Pilot, Milind Deora, Jyotiraditya Scindia,
Priya Dutt and the sons of Jeetendra Prasad, Jaswant Singh and Vasundhara
Raie.
There are political families elsewhere in
the world, political names that give those who bear them an instant advantage,
but in India we have devised a unique, new form of democratic feudalism that
makes a parliamentary constituency into a sort of feudal estate to be passed
down as lands and estates used to be in the days of kingdoms and landed aristocracy.
There are those who argue that this kind of
hereditary democracy is part of the political culture of our sub-continent.
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have long been ruled by widows and daughters
of dead leaders so why should we have a problem with this happening in India.
Well, we are India
Precisely, because we are India. The roots
of democracy are much stronger in the soil of good old Bharat Mata than they
are in the soil of our neighbouring countries so we need to lead the way and
we must lead away from hereditary democracy. No good comes of it and no good
can because if someone gets elected to the Lok Sabha or one of our state assemblies
on the strength of his or her surname and no for political reasons we can
be sure that the main benefits of this election will accrue to the candidate's
family and not to the general public.
It is shameful that sixty years after India
became an independent country our political class has been unable to provide
the most basic necessities of modern life in their constituencies. That bijli,
sadak, pani remain the fundamental demands at election time speaks for itself.
These are not difficult demands to meet and when an MP is serious about working
for the good of his constituents he usually succeeds in providing them but
if he gets elected because of 'charisma' or 'dynasty' he is usually distracted
by other concerns like working to preserve his hereditary political estate.
So, charisma replaces real issue. The images
that will be remembered from Rae Bareilli are of Sonia Gandhi's handsome,
white-skinned children mingling among the impoverished, malnourished masses.
Very gracious, very noblesse oblige. Will
anyone remember their speeches? Does anyone need to since all that they promised
was that their Mummy would do more for the people than anyone else.
The 'people' seemed so bedazzled by their good looks and their promises that
nobody asked why Rae Bareilli continues to be one of the poorest, most backward
constituencies in the country.
This is another ugly aspect of dynastic democracy.
Practitioners of this form of electoral politics benefit most if people remain
poor, backward and illiterate. So it is perhaps no coincidence that constituencies
that are represented by heirs to political dynasties, tend to get left behind
where development is concerned. Charisma has massive appeal at election time
but has little use; afterwards since it is a poor substitute for real political
solutions and development.
Why dynastic democracy?
So, if dynastic democracy is such a bad thing
why do people vote for political heirs? There is an easy answer to that one.
Indian democracy may have strong roots but our voters remain largely illiterate
and unaware of political issues so it is easy to fool them into voting for
the wrong reasons or why would caste be such a factor in our backward constituencies.
It is for political parties to take the lead in giving tickets to real politicians
instead of those whose credentials are based on their surnames or good looks.
What we have seen in recent elections is the
opposite. Not only do political heirs get given priority but fashion designers,
movie stars and television actresses seem to make it ahead of political workers
who have sometimes spent a lifetime working for the party. In Mumbai, during
the last assembly elections, a fashion designer was pitted against a veteran
Congress politician.
The politician had been around for a while
and had done little for his constituents but people were forced to vote for
him because they had no idea who the fashion designer was or why she sought
to represent them in Parliament.
It is time for Indian political parties to
grow up and encourage better democratic practices. But, if last week elections
were anything to go by, we are a long way from getting there yet.
