Dynastic Politics Is Wrong When It Becomes a Hereditary Monarchy

In the recently concluded two-day BJP national executive jamboree held in Hyderabad, it vowed to uproot ‘dynastic politics’ from the country. What exactly did it mean? Was it sniping at K Chandrasekhar Rao( KCR’s) son, KT Rama Rao (KTR), tipped to be the next CM by the party founder?

And let us remember KCR made it his life’s mission to split the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh and carve Telangana out of it. He is no ordinary family party oriented politician with a private limited political party, but one with intense grass roots identification. However, his long innings in power, with dark accusations of corruption, has blunted his appeal with the masses, and he could be suffering from strong anti-incumbency at present.

Hyderabad, hinted Prime Minister Modi, might undergo a name change. He called it Bhagyanagar, casually, as if the name had already been changed, and BJP was already ruling in Telangana. Given that the BJP runs only one state, Karnataka, in the South, it is very keen to enlarge its footprint in the region.

Other big wigs, including Amit Shah and JP Nadda made raucous calls to throw out KCR and Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) and install the BJP in the coming assembly elections of 2023. Some other BJP leaders even threatened a Maharashtra style power grab. KCR responded by saying the BJP had already collapsed nine state governments so far, without elaborating further.

BJP’s new confidence is based on the fact that it has bagged 48 seats, up from just 4, in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) recently. And this in direct competition with All India Majlis e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and TRS. Some of these BJP seats are in Muslim majority areas around the Charminar, previously held by AIMIM. The overall BJP tally has now exceeded than that of the AIMIM’s in Hyderabad. TRS seats in GHMC, which went largely to the BJP, fell drastically to just 55.

BJP taunts for the TRS were a-plenty in multiple televised speeches. It said that KCR was CM, but Asaduddin Owaisi, with 44 seats in the GHMC, via his party AIMIM, effectively ran the government, and not son KTR.

This despite AIMIM having just seven seats in the assembly. In addition, to be fair, AIMIM has 67 municipal corporators across the state, including the 44 in Hyderabad, and 70 councillors in Telangana. Owaisi himself occupies the sole Lok Sabha seat that has been with the party, and its predecessor under Asaduddin’s father, since 1956.

A livid KCR stopped just short of fulsome abuse in response. His twenty questions for Prime Minister Modi in rousing Hindi went unanswered. KCR made a great show of refusing the receive the prime minister at Begumpet Airport, now for the third time, in favour of the Opposition candidate for president, Yashwant Sinha. And the GHMC roundly fined the BJP for putting up unauthorised hoardings.

Dynasts are common enough in Indian politics. There are scions of known political dynasties sprinkled liberally all over the BJP power structure, both in the party and the government. But none at the very top, and none in a position to install his son or daughter in the chief minister or prime minister’s gaddi or in the president of the party’s chair when he retires.

However, in TRS, it is a near certainty that KCR’s son will inherit the top job, if the party wins another term. BJP’s immediate declared mission is to garner 100 Lok Sabha wins from the five southern states in 2024. Some of these could well come from Telangana, particularly if the assembly elections deliver gains for the BJP, or even an upset win. However, like Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, KCR is well entrenched, and has directed a satisfying amount of welfare for the poor and impoverished.

The dynastic politics trope fits in Telangana, and as elsewhere, it tends to stunt party performance as the top job is pre-booked. Ditto in most of the regional political parties such as the DMK, TMC, SP, SAD, RJD.

In the BJD of Odisha, Navin Patnaik seems to have no heir-apparent as yet. Will Odisha fall to the BJP after him? Likewise, none in the AIADMK, after the passing of Jayalalitha. Will they be the battering ram for BJP to dislodge a dynastic DMK in Tamil Nadu? CPI(M) does not have hereditary supremos, but it is in power only in the troubled state of Kerala. It is too early to say whether AAP will install Kejriwal’s son after him.

Many in the remaining opposition states are feeling cornered and making quite a few intemperate remarks, ranging from a half serious call to secede from A Raja in Tamil Nadu, to a jihad against the BJP from Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal. KCR himself, angry for a long time at the central government not taking up Telangana parboiled rice for MSP, listed afresh the alleged failings of the Modi administration from demonetisation onwards.

The Congress, reduced to ruling in just two states, will still not countenance anybody at the helm except a Gandhi or a Vadra.

The argument to justify hereditary succession works in some places. The son of a doctor becomes a doctor (unless he wants to be a dancer). The son of a lawyer becomes one too. This argument holds good in the professions, business, and acting to a large extent. It makes the passage of the next generation towards success easier. With inherited capital, assets, property, goodwill, knowledge, hard-work, reputation, standing, stature, charisma, connections, clients, products, staff. In short, the success kit and caboodle of the parent or grand-parent.

Junior still needs acumen, ability, luck, pomp and circumstance to succeed, and make his own mark. But the initial few crucial doors and breaks are delivered on a platter.

This doesn’t work so well in a political party which has to earn its votes in a parliamentary democracy. And this, with relentless regularity. Yesterday’s success weighs as if nothing against today’s failure. We can see how the mighty have fallen. But then, perhaps Rahul Gandhi’s heart is not in politics.

Dynastic politics sometimes does not work in a monarchy either. Monarchy, that power device of the past. Most are now constitutional and ceremonial. But there are absolute monarchies left in West Asia. Even in such absolute monarchies, the new king has to eliminate rivals successfully and quickly to assert his ascendancy. And then promptly demonstrate that he can indeed rule.

The problem being that a bad unelected head of a political party takes it down. Just as an incompetent hereditary king cannot save his crown.

In a democracy, to create a bottleneck in family run political parties tends to breed complacency. This is what saw Uddhav Thackeray out of power, along with his son Aditya and other constituents of the Aghadi government.

Mamata Banerjee, speaking at a media enclave recently, refused to regard herself and her nephew as an example of dynastic politics. She has her own peculiar logic.  Working at politics on the streets is not dynastic politics she said. My whole family is in politics but not in positions of power, ignoring the succession plan via the nephew that no one in the TMC can challenge. She cited Amit Shah’s son parachuted into a top job at the BCCI as a good example of dynastic politics instead. That Amit Shah is not in the BCCI did not make any difference to her.

The problem will come nevertheless in TMC if nephew Abhishek Banerjee cannot demonstrate the necessary acumen, grit and intelligence to devise ways to stay in power and carry the flock. Mamata Banerjee, unlike Rahul Gandhi or Stalin, is a first-generation politician who has built her political base  by herself. This is not true of the silver-spoon that goes with being a second generation heir-apparent.

The BJP implies that dynastic politics like this not blocks inner-party growth, setting it up for raids or worse, but that it saps the vitality and initiative of the organisation. It is this that a partially cadre-based party like the BJP hopes to exploit.

With the failure of the nearly four-decade old Anti-defection Law, even in its amended form, to prevent party faithful from leaving its ranks, there is no effective way for dynasts to keep control. Inner party democracy may be the answer, with regular internal elections, but what tends to stop this is the control over the finances of the party. The money is often in the custody of the dynastic head and he or she does not wish to part with either the perch or the money.

There is no guarantee that even elected office bearers won’t at any time start new dynasties to control both the party and its coffers. Cadre-based parties that regularly change top office-bearers can, to an extent, buck this trend.

As BJP is a dominant party like this, that has enjoyed enormous electoral success with its largely Hindutva based politics, it seeks to make further gains with this new perspective. Can they uproot dynastic politics wherever they find it, in the political hustings and via other means? In some cases yes, but we must recognise it is as much a justification as a crusade. Besides, dynasties that oppose  will be targeted, not those that ally themselves.

 

(1,541 words)

July 5^th, 2022

For: Firstpost

Gautam Mukherjee