Ajit Pawar suffers from the ‘Prince Charles syndrome’. He sees himself as uncle Sharad Pawar’s natural heir in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). He has ached to become the chief minister of Maharashtra, but has never laid his hands on the prized post despite being the deputy chief minister an agonising five times. And while Prince Charles waited 74 years for his coronation, Ajit has been notoriously impatient. A failed mutiny in November 2019, left him with lots of egg on his face, but roughly 4 years later, he has led yet another coup within the NCP, and is deputy chief yet again.
To justify this stab in the back, Ajit has made Sharad’s age an issue, asking why the veteran, soon to be 83, refuses to retire and hand over the NCP to him. Ajit’s rival to the NCP seat, Sharad’s daughter, Supriya Sule, was quick to call out Ajit for being disrespectful to her dad. And Sharad too, quipped – “Na tired hu, na retired hu (I’m neither tired nor retired)” – indicating that he is in no mood to take sanyas (retirement).
But, hang on. There’s a problem with this discussion, isn’t it? And the problem, in a word, is – dynasty. It should be obvious but in India we have been gloriously oblivious to the fact that ‘dynasty’ is anathema to ‘democracy’.
Instead, over the decades, we’ve allowed our netas (politicians) to tie the legs of dynasty and democracy together, and make them run a fumbling, awkward ‘three-legged race’, the kind we used to have at kiddie birthday parties. And like indulgent onlookers at those birthday parties, we clap along and tell ourselves, ‘Chalo, jaisi taisi hi sahi, par phir bhi.. hai to democracy..’(It may not be perfect but at least it’s a democracy).
Also read: PM Modi Must Realise That a Diarchy Is As Big a Threat to Democracy as Dynastic Politics
Unfortunately, that is not true anymore. The cost of dynasty politics in India’s flawed democracy is a steady slide towards right-wing authoritarianism as the BJP gains from this stream of party splits and exits. If our many political parties do not abandon ‘dynasty’ soon, we may find out in a few years that this was Indian democracy’s fatal flaw.
To understand how it works (and it’s not rocket science), let’s ask – why did the NCP split? Because Ajit wasn’t getting a chance to lead the party. And not just Ajit. Nobody else was getting a chance to lead the party. In fact, if anyone stood a chance, it was nephew Ajit and daughter Supriya, as and when Sharad did tire or retire.
For the rest, there was a glass ceiling crushing their aspirations. Crushed by ‘dynasty’. And this made the NCP an easy target for the BJP. Here was a party, where whether you had merit or not, you would never get the top job. What does that do? It creates a frustrated second rung – leaders who have put in the hard yards, spent decades serving the party, nursing their constituencies, often turning them into party bastions, performing as ministers, and yes, even providing for the party’s coffers. Yet they stagnate in politics, thanks to that very real, stubborn, glass ceiling. And so, when patience runs out, and an offer is made, party ideology and loyalty is easily cast aside.
And when the NCP split, who gained? The BJP.
Now let’s replace these dramatis personae with others. Replace Sharad with Uddhav Thackeray, replace Ajit with Eknath Shinde, and replace the NCP with the Shiv Sena. It’s the same story – Shinde’s aspirations collide with the Thackeray dynasty glass ceiling. His frustration, along with that of several other Sena leaders, is pounced upon by Devendra Fadnavis. The BJP promises Shinde the elusive seat and the Sena is successfully split.
Who gains? The BJP.
For the BJP, prising Shinde and Ajit away is significant beyond Maharashtra politics. The state sends 48 MPs to the Lok Sabha, and after JD(U)’s exit from the NDA fold, the BJP urgently needed to secure Lok Sabha seats from a state outside the Hindi heartland. For now, it seems to have managed that in Maharashtra. The point to hammer here – it’s the dynastic DNA of the NCP and Shiv Sena that made it easier. These two coups could emerge as the single big reason for the BJP’s return to power in 2024.
Then, yet again, let’s replace Uddhav Thackeray with Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi, replace Shinde with Himanta Biswa Sharma and Jyotiraditya Scindia, and replace the Shiv Sena with the Congress. Need we say more? And the gainer, in both cases? Again, the BJP.
Over the years, a stubbornly dynastic Congress has seen the most attrition and yet stayed mysteriously unmoved by it. While the immediate trigger in each case may have been different, the exits of Sharad, PA Sangma, Mamata Banerjee, Jagan Reddy, Ghulam Nabi Azad, the chronic dissatisfaction of Sachin Pilot, are all related to these leaders not getting their due in Gandhi Inc.
Also read: Sultan Modi’s Slave Dynasty is No Better than the Family Dynasties in Other Parties
Some of them are dynasts within the dynastic party, but that just shows how deep and well-entrenched the problem is. Even Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram, both Congress pillars, saw their frustration boil over, leading to their temporary exits from the Congress. Even Congress leaders who never rebelled, have ‘under-performed’ over the years, lacking the motivation to do more than hold on to their local fiefdoms. For instance, why hasn’t a senior Congress leader ever stuck his or her neck out to revive the party in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Odisha or elsewhere? As a result, the Congress has shrunk in clout and numbers, in Parliament and in state assemblies as well.
There have been two sets of gainers from Congress’s shrinkage and attrition of leaders . In the states, regional satraps replaced the Congress with the exception of some states where the BJP has benefitted. But at the national level, there is only one clear gainer – the BJP.
The problem with dynasties is that it undermines genuine ‘inner party democracy’. Within every party that is structured as a dynasty, or a one-man, or -woman show, the search for merit comes almost to a standstill. It also kills the habit of vigorous public debate within the party – over ideology, over the party’s stand and strategy on key issues and political challenges, as most leaders simply defer to the party boss who cannot be challenged. And as open debate and merit recede in importance, these parties become less competitive. Even the importance of ideology wanes in these parties, as a party member’s climb up the ranks depends more on personal loyalty. And as we have seen, with Ajit or Sharma and the rest, ‘personal loyalty’ is easier to abandon, allowing these leaders not to think twice about joining a party with a diametrically opposite ideology.
To grasp how pervasive the situation is, here’s a roster of dynastic parties in India with a single showrunner – National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party, Shiromani Akali Dal, Samajwadi Party, Indian National Lok Dal, Rashtriya Lok Dal, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Bharat Rashtra Samiti, Shiv Sena (UBT), NCP, Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, Janata Dal Secular, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Trinamool Congress, Janata Dal United, Biju Janata Dal, Telugu Desam Party, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
Some of these parties do challenge the BJP at the state level, but their one-man/one-woman led nature doesn’t allow them to grow beyond a single state. And so, none of them have been able to challenge the BJP nationally, and stop the party from winning the last 2 general elections.
A thriving democracy needs a robust political contest, not merely a showdown of personalities. It needs a genuine, transparent contest of ideologies, policies, of economic, social, and political plans, values, and a vision for the country’s future. How does a country like the US ensure that? With both their key parties committed to finding new leaders every 4 years. Even a sitting president can’t take re-nomination for granted, it has to be fought for. And after 2 terms that leader must walk into the sunset.
Barack Obama is just 61, articulate, energetic, and 19 years younger than Joe Biden. But can he hope to return as the US President? No, never again. The Democrats and Republicans may disagree on a lot, but they all believe that without this system that relentlessly seeks out new leaders, which is built on the bedrock of merit and transparent debate, their democracy will be a sham.
Meanwhile, the BJP is not complaining. Their right-wing, authoritarian political model has little time for liberal democratic traditions such as transparent debate, dissent, and constructive political churn. It doesn’t want its brand of majoritarianism to be challenged. It doesn’t want a robust political opposition calling out its every authoritarian excess. It doesn’t want any light shone on its project of undermining vital democratic institutions. And India’s political opposition, by refusing to re-invent themselves and revitalise Indian democracy, is currently playing right into the BJP’s hands, and exposing India’s spurious democracy.
Rohit Khanna is a journalist and video storyteller. He has been Managing Editor at The Quint, and is a two-time Ramnath Goenka award winner.
