thought responding to the comment on dynastic politics required a separate post and here it is.I entirely agree with Sachin on the hereditary nature in different spheres in our public life. Opportunities are hard to come by in politics, businesses etc for those not connected to the mighty with power and pelf. This is partly because of the weak systems in place. For instance: Referring to the movies part, do we see any professional film-making, acting schools which are serious about churning out true professionals who can cater to the industry? No. So we have the the powerful folks within the film industry planning for their kith and kin and 'launching' them onto the unsuspecting audience. Ditto in politics. Do we see good liberal arts courses in Indian universities that actually turn out future assemblymen or parliamentarians? No again. So we have the powerful leaders planning the careers of their kin into 'public service'. In both these fields, dynasties came in because of weak or non-existent institutions. And India is not the only country that has democracy of the dynasties, for the dynasties and by the dynasties. Except in the west and few other countries, where there are sound institutions, the story remains the same in most of the third world. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran are but few examples.
Strong political systems not just identify and cultivate worthy candidates for politics but also have vibrant inner-party democracy. During the emergency, the extraordinary political situation has been so successfully met by these very 'freshmen' unconnected to any dynasties who rallied behind Jayaprakash Narayan. All these were students from universities, mostly with a prevailing socialist mindset. That was true leadership that came from grassroots and they routed out Indira Gandhi and her younger son in the election soon after the emergency. It is just that India did not consistently throw out this kind of genuine leadership. Even if some brave soul genuinely bent on public service makes his initial mark by luck or opportunity, lack of inner-party democracy acts as a glass-ceiling. The advantage continues to rest with dynasties which has well-established cliques within parties.
And how do these cliques form? To start with, a guy develops his coterie, cultivates a constituency of voters (vote-bank, on caste, religious lines) studiously and then a plethora of lobbyists, contractors, power brokers, businessmen, party workers, volunteers, fundraisers mushroom around. They develop a well-oiled machinery based on mutual interest whether in power or not. Now the guy suddenly passes away and the whole gang needs a placeholder who can promise continuity. So it would be either the dead guy's son/daughter/son-in-law/daughter-in-law or his wife. The problem here, is not just about nepotism, or dynastic politics, it’s more about the system that mastered electoral politics with corruption, casteism, religious fundamentalism etc. I think this is the crux of all father-son/daughter/wife inheritance ideas, at least in politics.
Suppose if we establish a system, for argument sake, where things like sanctioning petrol pumps, big buck infra projects, or even municipal contracts are not won by some businessman just because he is being recommended for by someone in power and if in fact such exercises are carried on due diligence and utmost transparency, unbiased rules and regulations we can be sure these politicians would not be able to form coteries because they would not be inciting enough. After all, why would any party worker threaten immolation or suicide for some leader’s benefit (like for an MLA ticket or ministry or chiefministership) if that leader cant even get this party worker a quick gas connection or make him a beneficiary of government’s free housing project?
In this idealistic, transparent and non-corrupt system, candidates for elections and after would be forced to discuss their policies, views in healthy debates rather than take the victory, position for granted just because they have the permanent support base they built based on corruption and caste equations.
Hence I think dynastic politics is not an issue in itself but the greater issues are weak political institutions, corruption, lack of good non-political leadership in civil society. Dynastic politics are but a byproduct of these. Let’s not forget the yuvrajs always win an election to come into assemblies/parliament. How easily they get in and what makes them win is the issue, not just the fact that they won.
In the context of the previous post too, I see the central issue as that of lack of inner-party democracy in state congress (that is how YSR got tickets for his own followers all across the state who are now hell-bent to award YSR Jr with chiefministership), corruption (its all too obvious in government spending), rather the institutionalization of corruption. The point of discussion of course is Jagan and chiefministership but Jagan's camp would make do with, say, KVP Ramachandra Rao as CM, if, for argument sake, the 'High command' agrees. As this would serve the purpose of 'continuity' and all the many loyalists would be able continue to mint their money, all this protest abt Jagan be made CM will die down, with Jagan himself being okay. Manmohan for Sonia, maybe KVP for Jagan!
