Politics of dynasty knows no boundaries
December 15, 2001 (IPS) — The election of George W. Bush Explore Cultures, Cities
as president eight years after his father left the White House, and Countrysides with Subscribers Sign-In
and Makiko Tanaka's induction as Japan's foreign minister the
some 25 years after her father was premier, proves that Inquisitive Traveler Home
dynastic politics is not a preserve of Third World democracies
and dictatorships. Memory Training How to subscribe to
Culture Briefings
For Students
Even industrialized democracies are not immune to the Decrease your study
How to order
politics of dynasty. Although the Kennedys were the most time Culture Briefings
famous Western political dynasty, the Bush election is the and increase your
second instance in American history of a father-son grades with Articles
presidency. The Students Winning
Edge News Stories
In the developing world, elected political dynasties have been
rather common, a generally accepted feature of the political Publications
horizon. But of late, a new phenomenon is emerging, namely,
the emergence of "republican dynasties" in authoritarian
Contact Us
states.
Privacy Policy
It started with North Korea when after the death of President
Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in
1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
Last year, after the death of Syria's President Hafez al
Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
In Iraq too, Saddam Hussain is grooming his son, Qusai
Hussain, to succeed him. He recently elevated his 35-year-
old son to the membership of the policy-making Regional
Command of the Baath Party.
All three instances are from highly centralized, one-party
states where the long-standing leader ensured a smooth
succession because of his total control over the state and
party machinery.
Kim Il-Sung for instance ruled from 1945 to 1994, a total of
49 years, while Assad's rule lasted for 30 years, from 1970-
2000. Saddam Hussain has exercised absolute power since
1975, after taking over in a Baath Party-backed military coup.
South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political
dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal
all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top
office.
Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the
entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime
Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime
ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers
serving in such high elective office.
Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister
Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike,
became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika
Kumaratunga, is president.
Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between
two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina,
daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia,
widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic
dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only
team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers,
ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
These were Jawaharlal Nehru from 1947-1964, Indira Gandhi
from 1966-1977 and again from 1980-1984, and Rajiv
Gandhi ruled during 1984-1989. His widow, the Italian-born
Sonia Gandhi, now heads the Congress Party and she is
also leader of the opposition.
In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during
1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two
stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman
from a Muslim state to head a government.
In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread --
President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and
political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there
have been demands for laws against these dynasties.
Such dynasties are quite common in American state and
local politics as well.
Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator,
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official
under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters
Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's
shoes in the same slot.
American scholar Stephen Hess, who wrote America's
Political Dynasties, talked of American political dynasties
coming "in all sizes and flavors."
After the last U.S. presidential election, an Indian
newspaper,Indian Express, gleefully wrote on November 8,
2000, that democratic "purists" and critics in India should
stop "moaning about how we alone in the world have been
loaded with politicians whose fathers or grandfathers,
mothers or grandmothers, uncles or aunts, great-uncles or
great-aunts or plain cousins also happen to be politicians."
The Times of India, writing in April this year in a run-up to
state elections, termed India "a democracy of dynasties, for
dynasties and by dynasties."
What are the causes behind the emergence of political
dynasties, and why do they remain resilient for decades,
sometimes generations, even in democratic societies?
Hard-and-fast answers may be difficult to find, but some
explanations could be easier to understand.
Three seem logical. First, access to the political system in
most countries is costly in terms of money and only those
who can afford the time, money, resources and have the
requisite connections find an entry into what is often an
exclusive if not closed club.
Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that
entry.
Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what
can be termed as politicians from Establishment families,
with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to
ensure a place on the political pedestal.
Then there are those who are respected for rendering
services to their country during crucial periods, such as an
independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is
unquestioned and widely accepted.
The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma,
Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria,
Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre.
How political dynasties have undermined India
November 12, 2008 16:42 IST
Share
this
Ask
Users
Write a
Comment
Hear! Hear!!
Rahul Gandhi [ Images ] has spoken and made a point: giving tickets to family members of party leaders to
contest elections 'undermines' the party because what has troubled the country is 'family', 'money', and
'patronage'.
He is actually the point he is trying to make.
Had he not been the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family, he would have had his knuckles rapped by the party high
command, which in this cannot happen because his mother (Congress President Sonia Gandhi [ Images ]) is the
high command.
Denial of opportunities
Had it been anyone else, there would have been public outrage and the umbrage would have been publicly
conveyed to the politician frustrated that the generation next has been denied an opportunity. They are families
that have learnt that what has been secured be better kept within the family.
You don't have to look far. The latest is the example of Margaret Alva. See how she has been asked to resign all
her party posts because she did whine that her son was denied a ticket for elections in Karnataka [ Images ] and
that some tickets were sold.
Such blasphemy from Alva should actually be no different from what has been said by the fifth generation in the
Nehru family, if you decide to start with Motilal Nehru. But power, and its transfer within the bloodline, has been
from the time of Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ], making it the fourth. Probably Nehru did not mean to have daughter
Indira Gandhi [ Images ] to be the prime minister, but she became. Had she not been of the Nehru house?
That, the young politician by inheritance, I hope, understands is the start of dynastic politics in this country.
But poor Alva does not know that there are people like Rahul Gandhi, more equal among equals, precisely
because of his birth in a family.
The dynast spoke
In other words, now the dynast has spoken. So it is wisdom, and so news. That is why his blunt conveyance of
his displeasure has not made Mama Sonia Gandhi angry, leading to a swift upbraiding. You see, Rahul Gandhi's
mama likes the son. Just like Alva likes hers. You are spared, she is not.
But let us not forget that Rahul's daddy would not have become a prime minister and would only continued to fly
planes had he not been the son of Indira Gandhi. That was the moment when Congressmen decided that family
is best to protect their own self-interests.
Fiefdoms
That is why you have promotion of self-interest on the pretext of public interest as the primary ambition of each
politician in the ranks of the Congress party and it has spread to other political parties as well; there is hardly a
party where such tendencies have been curbed, thought it may not be widespread. All parties are touched by this
malaise.
Now that Rahul Gandhi is on a travel across the country, of course in fits and starts, not like the one long journey
across the vivid, colourful, poor and subjugated country that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [ Images ] undertook
at the behest of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, he may learn a lot more about the local political families of the
Congressmen who have held local people in thrall in their fiefdoms and survived by paying their tributes to the
Nehru-Gandhi family.
Keeping it warm
Let us not forget that once a sitting member of an elected body -- panchayat to Parliament -- dies, it was the
Congress that used the argument those in difficult situations, 'the sympathy factor' worked best with the
emotional Indians and opted for a son, daughter or widow as a candidate in by-elections. That was promoting a
family, even if indirectly, in achieving the right numbers and continued presence of a party nominee. That was the
Congress contribution to Indian democracy.
That would be quite educative to the young man who is a self-confessed learner of reality.
It starts in the village panchayats. Men who have to sidestep because positions are reserved for women have
almost invariably managed to find a wife, a sister, a daughter, a mother, a mother-in-law or even a sister-in-law to
keep the seat warm for them till the reservation is vacated.
Patronage
That is why we have apparently 'selected', and not 'elected' representatives in such constituencies, be it the
village panchayat or the Lok Sabha; their stranglehold and ability to dispense patronage and in some cases, put
the scare, is the main cause for the votes going their way.
One does not have to look only to Lalu Prasad Yadav [ Images ] for making his wife chief minister of Bihar or
Mulayam Singh Yadav [ Images ] for helping make Akhilesh Yadav, a member of Parliament. The examples
abound, though some kith and kin have conducted them exemplarily and made a contribution.
So much so, there are constituencies, as in Akluj in Maharashtra [ Images ], or even Baramati, Or Sangli where
virtually everyone connected with the late Vasantdada Patil's family got his share of the public pie. These are
places where the family matters above all. There are examples in Andhra Pradesh, or in Tamil Nadu, or well, the
list can go on and on, of places and people across the wide, big country, without apparent end.
Top to bottom
These give rise, at the micro-level, to family fiefdoms where they take control of all elected offices by the sheer
strength of the influence they wield and the people only rubber stamp them on the ballot papers. Technically,
they are 'elected' but in reality, forced down the people's throat.
The point made by Rahul Gandhi is quite right. It, according to him, undermines the party. According to me, such
nepotism undermines the nation because those who deserve to be in positions and make a difference to the
country are not allowed to move beyond the fringes. In India [ Images ], patronage matters. What better than
patronage of a powerful family, even if it is localised in its reach?
It is only a replication at the bottom of the heap of the ills at the apex.
India's latest political dynasty?
By Alastair Lawson
BBC News
Ms Sangma has a fine political pedigree
A bye-election in the north-eastern Indian state of Meghalaya on Thursday could
result in the formation of a new political dynasty.
If Agatha Sangma is elected to the Indian parliament after the vote, she will be the
fourth member of her immediate family to hold public office.
Experts say she will also become the youngest sitting MP in parliament.
Agatha's father PA Sangma, is India's former parliamentary Speaker. She is competing
for his old seat.
'Suffering'
Mr Sangma's decision to resign from the lower house of the Indian parliament (Lok
Sabha) and become a member of Meghalaya's state assembly means she could become
the third of his children to hold public office.
Mr Sangma's two sons, Conrad and James, are
already members of the state assembly.
He has been reported as saying that he hopes his
family's achievements will be recognised by
Guinness World Records.
Throughout the campaign, the Delhi-based
lawyer has had to fight off allegations that her
The Sangma name is commonplace in
candidacy means that the Sangma family is Meghalaya
forming a new Indian political dynasty.
"I am standing for election because I have seen the difficulties faced by Garo tribes
people of the state and want to dedicate my life towards alleviating their suffering," she
said.
If previous statistics are anything to go by, Ms Sangma has a good chance of winning
Thursday's vote.
"Sangmas do not have a record of losing elections," says Shillong Times editor Patricia
Mary Mukhim.
"PA Sangma has been in politics for 30 years - elected no less than nine times to the
Lok Sabha - and hardly ever has been beaten in a popular vote."
Ms Mukhim says that a new Indian political dynasty could be emerging.
"I don't think we have had a situation like this before in India - where four immediate
family members have all been in simultaneous public office," she said.
Dynastic politics takes hold of India
By Sanjeev Srivastava
BBC News, Delhi
Rahul Gandhi is tipped by many to be a future
Indian PM
As Indians were reeling from the sudden death of YSR Reddy, the popular chief
minister of Andhra Pradesh state, some of his supporters launched a campaign to
install his son as his successor.
The move was seen as both brazen and bizarre by many political analysts already
concerned about the rise of dynastic politics in India.
Jagan Mohan Reddy had made his electoral debut only a few weeks ago by
successfully contesting parliamentary elections. He had never held any public office.
But within hours of his father's death, there was pressure to appoint him the chief
minister of a large and prosperous state.
The efforts are still continuing but the Congress leadership looks in no mood to oblige.
Dynastic rule
A senior congress leader and party general secretary told me that the possibility of
Jagan Mohan Reddy being made the chief minister was "zero".
There are several reasons why the Congress
leadership is not keen on obliging Mr
Reddy junior.
It does not want to give the impression that
anyone can dictate terms to them. That
would dilute the authority of the party's
central leadership (a euphemism for the
Gandhi family) and encourage other
powerful state leaders to think in terms of Thousands of mourners turned out to pay their
respects to Mr Reddy
carving out their own fiefdoms.
An elevation of the inexperienced Mr Reddy would be certain to invite much criticism
and ridicule.
But the Congress leadership's attitude towards Jagan Mohan Reddy should not be seen
as any major rethink in the party on the issue of family and dynastic rule.
The recently released list of candidates for the forthcoming state elections in the
western state of Maharashtra is dominated by the sons, daughters and close family
members of Congress leaders.
Such is the stranglehold of dynasties that even the son of the president of India has
secured a party nomination - kicking off a row in the process.
His challengers include a powerful rebel and incumbent lawmaker who was given the
boot by the party's leadership to accommodate the president's son.
Congress is not alone in succumbing to the pull and pressures of kinsmen in politics.
The same holds true for most other political parties.
In regional parties the top rungs of the power structure are almost completely
dominated by the extended family of the ruling elite.
Iron hand
So Mr Karunanidhi and his family call the shots
in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the
governing party in the southern state of Tamil
Nadu, which is also a partner in the governing
coalition in Delhi.
Lalu Prasad Yadav and his family run the RJD
in Bihar, the Badals run the Akali Dal in
Punjab, the Thackeray family runs Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra and Ajit Singh and his family The Sangmas from Meghalaya are one of
many political families
wield considerable influence in parts of Uttar
Pradesh.
An interesting aside is the case of the political parties where the top leader is single. In
these instances power is completely centralised in the hands of one individual.
So Mayawati, the low caste leader, runs India's largest state of Uttar Pradesh with an
iron hand and Jayalalitha, leader of AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, is known for her
autocratic ways.
Even the much hyped youth brigade in the national parliament - dubbed as the future of
Indian polity - largely comprises MPs who come from political families.
So this power list includes a Gandhi, Abdullah, Pawar, Scindhia, Pilot, Prasad, Yadav,
Sangma, Satpathy, Choudhary, Deora, Dutt... the list of illustrious political families in
the national parliament can go on and on!
They may all be bright young men and women but in the constituencies they represent,
but they have also usurped the right of ordinary Indians to secure nominations from
mainstream political parties to contest elections.
Rahul Gandhi has more than once acknowledged the problem dynastic politics
presents.
"I know I am a product of this [dynastic
politics] system. But can't I try and change
it?"
So far he has not done much to reverse the
trend.
Big challenge
Another scion of a political family is Sachin
Pilot, a normally very sure-footed and
smooth-talking management graduate,
second-term MP and a minister in the
central government.
He was quite predictable when I asked him
to react to those who blame political
Laloo Prasad Yadav's family dominates the Bihar
dynasties for making the Indian political political landscape
system more restrictive for average Indians.
"Ultimately people decide. Everyone, from whatever background they come, has to
win an election."
Tathagata Satpathy, son of a former chief minister and third-term MP, was a little more
candid.
He admitted that coming from powerful political families helps to get a party ticket
which is crucial in the context of Indian elections.
"But the voter as well as the party takes to you kindly only the first time. In each
subsequent election you are judged on your performance and the more powerful and
mighty a family you represent the chances are the voter will judge you that much more
harshly and critically at the time of elections."
So where does that leave the Indian political system; supposedly the world's biggest,
most alive and representative democracy?
Political scientists see family rule and political dynasties posing a big challenge.
Doomsday soothsayers go a step further and say India practises feudalism in the garb
of democracy.
They warn that unless the trend is checked there is a real danger that a few hundred
families will completely corner the political market.
POLITICAL DYNASTY OF INDIA (1947 – ?)
After the Gupta, Maurya, Chola, Chera, Pandya, Vijayanagar and all the great dynasties of India…there
was a lull. We suddenly starting talking in English and wearing pants/shirts with stifling ties (in 50 degC)
just to please some babu. The British had effectively gotten rid of dynasties in India and India was
heading towards being a true democracy with elected officials and all !
But, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, a new dynasty came alive in India. A dynasty with such chosen
few that even a great soul cannot break into its ranks. A dynasty so pure in its culture that misfits are
weeded out almost instantly to make way for new seed (pun intended). Ladies and gentlemen .. say
hello to the Political Dynasty (1947 – forever).
So whoever said that India is a democracy with elected officials was probably some guy who had
blinkers on and never read the papers or never went turned on the TV. This guy for sure did not know
that India is still ruled by kings and queens and very few people are elected by an actual democratic
process. . The rest of them have a simple true/false question to answer and that qualifies them to be a
politician.
Q) Is your father/mother/uncle/aunt/close relative a politician?
If the answer is no, then you might as well think of becoming a doctor/software
engineer/lawyer/blogger/call center employee/run-of-the-mill job employee/etc.
However, if by the virtue of position of the stars in the northern hemisphere you
answered “yes” —- then you need not study/go to college/work, because you are all set to rule India.
You are fit to commandeer her into the next decade/century…. Hearty Congratulations. Shall we set a
date for the anointment ceremony.
Well, for those who couldn’t understand how by birth a person can be a successful politician, here is a
throwback to ancient times. Remember how Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu learned how to break out of the
chakravyuha while he was in his mother’s womb? Same logic applies here …. these poli-kids
(presumably) learn the nitty-gritties of political maneuvers, party-switching, back-stabbing, money-
pilfering, canvassing, campaigning while in their mother’s womb thus making them eligible to join
politics.
Here is a small list of the political dynasty from 1947 onwards. We shall henceforth assume 1947 is the
start year of the political dynasty.
1. P.A Sangma and his daughter who became an MP. An MP — not a panchayat sarpanch.
2. And not to mention Pandit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and the reigns
have now passed on to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Ah…. Rahul.. the poster boy of the
Congress. How sweet .. isn’t it?
3. Rajesh Pilot (dad) and Sachin Pilot (son) who has a degree from Wharton (so he is pretty well
read). But here is what peeves me — he was inducted into Congress on the birthday of his dad
with a huge rally to commemorate the event.
4. Then down South, we have the sons of DeveGowda wreaking havoc. One became a CM
(Kumaraswamy) and the other wanted to swallow the power ministry (Revanna).
5. Representing Tamil Nadu – Karunanidhi and his children – Stalin and Kanimozhi.
6. Murasoli Maran and his son Kalanidhi Maran from Tamil Nadu.
7. And how can anyone forget Lalu and his wife Rabri. Well technically they are not a father-
daughter combo but they have all intentions of keeping Bihar in their pajama pockets.
8. Maneka Gandhi.
Somehow I think there are a lot of people missing in this list.. so please feel free to add to the family
tree of the Political Dynasty. 1000 years from now, we don’t want the West to deny the existence of
this dynasty due to the lack of written data. Right?
Before anyone pounces at me and accuses me of targeting politicians… let me play the Devils’ Advocate
too. I am fully aware that most politicians come from humble backgrounds and that they have made it
big by starting young. right from their college days by taking part in student politics, youth wings of
various parties, etc. I appreciate that and I thank for the sacrifice since I am not capable of doing it. But
what angers me is the ease with which their children get into politics. Why they are deemed the chosen
few? Why the right to lead the country is handed to them on a silver platter? This is nepotism of the
highest degree. Look at Abdul Kalam and Shashi Tharoor. They had to work hard and become
international luminaries before they were allowed to make policy decisions. And boy, did they teach the
politicos a thing or two.
So, now having said all this .. can we take a cue from the netas? Let’s make doctors’ children doctors.
Engineers’ children should automatically become engineers — with or without a degree to boot. Why
should that not be allowed? Is it because politics is simpler and fixing a person’s heart difficult? I don’t
think there is any difference. Avoiding conflicts with our neighbors and providing 24 hours
security/food/perfume to terrorists is a 24×7 task which is not simple and there should be a better way
to chose our elected representatives.
So I ask you … what do you think about this matter? What can be done about this? What can anyone do
about this? Looking forward to hearing comments if any. Hope I am not alone in this opinion. I am bored
of seeing the “Gandhi” clan rule India. I am tired of being a backseat driver too.
Inner Party Democracy7
SEP 25
Note: This is the second part of the three part series on Next Generation Electoral Reforms
(other two – Intership for MPs & MLAs , MP – M for Muder, P for Politcs ) .
One look at the leadership of various political parties in India, will confirm that our democracy is
only skin deep. While the leaders give customary lip service to democracy, their autocratic streak
is all too evident in their dealings within their own political parties. Not only do they shamelessly
promote their kith and kins, they run their parties as personal fiefdoms. They also prevent free
voicing of opinions. Any contrarian voice against the ruling clique even at ‘Inner Party Fora’ leads
to swift expulsion. Even though it is now established, that dissent is the true essence of
democracy, no political party in India, without exception, provides any space for dissent. How
can such a situation be conducive to the growth and prosperity of democratic values in our
polity?
Not too long ago, Government formation at the Center was held hostage to the the equitable
distribution of power within the progeny of Karunanidhi from his three marriages. Alas! he did
not command the numerical strength to justify a cabinet birth for each of his
sons/daughters/grand nephews, but he gave the Congress negotiators a tough time
anyway. The recent clamour in Andhra
Pradesh for anointing the political novice son of the late Chief Minister as the next CM, is
symptomatic of the same problem. Indian political history is replete with instances of dynastic
successions. Led by the redoubtable Nehru-Indira Gandhi-Rajeev-Sonia-Rahul, off late this virus
has been contracted by practically every state satrap be it Lalu-Rabri & Paswans in Bihar,
Patnayaks in Orissa, Badals in Punjab, Abdullahs & Sayeeds in J&K, Pawars & Thakerays in
Maharashtra, Goudas in Karnataka, Mulayam clan in U.P., Karunanidhi clan in TN etc. . The
examples are endless on both sides of the divide. The oft repeated, specious argument that one
should not object to politician’s son being a politician when there is no objection to a doctor’ son
becoming doctor, engineer’s son being engineer etc., does not hold much water. The objections
are not just based on the sons/daughters/nephews/wives joining politics but more importantly
on the complete absence of any due process and the walkover awarded to these star politicians. It
is almost akin to a business or a monarchical succession. Obviously it is at the cost of other more
deserving leaders and it discourages those without such affiliations to enter politics.
Even otherwise, nomination of candidates for elections by Political parties is done without any
tranparent due process. It is subject to the whims of the ruling clique. In some cases, sale of party
tickets to the highest bidder has also come to light. It may seem like an internal matter of the
respective political party, but it has an important bearing on the quality of choice (or lack of it)
available to the electorate. Hence this process to needs to be brought under public scrutiny. We
need to devise a model where party members duly elect their candidates for each constituency
after following a due process.
Party system is an integral part of parliamentary democracy. It plays a crucial role in deciding not
just the candidates but also the ‘party line’ on critical issues. This ‘party line’ is then enforced in
the legislatures using the anti-defection bill, if required. Normally the political satrap’s whim
becomes the will of the people. Hence political parties can not be left soley to the discretion of
the their leaders alone. They needs to be more tightly regulated by an outside agency. While the
election commission mandates timely election of party functionaries, in most cases it is a mere
formality. Active electioneering is discouraged and a consensus is concocted to keep the status
quo going.
Inner party democracy will add more depth and meaning to our democracy. It will also have a
direct impact on the kind of people joining politcs and a bearing on the choice available to the
elecotorate.
