JOIN USWith every passing general election, an increasing number of children, grandchildren, spouses, siblings and even cousins get elected to Parliament. It can sometimes seem that politics is just another family business and a House seat just another heirloom to pass on. It is no different with the 15th Lok Sabha which has, so to say, become a new version of the revolving door between family and politics. That revolving door opens up to a world of wealth, power and status.
Family politics is not unique. One need look no further than the Gandhis, the Bushes, the Kirchners of Argentina, the Bhuttos of Pakistan, the Machpagals of the Philippines and the Sukarnos of Indonesia. As elsewhere in the world, including the United States, family ties retain a special place in Indian politics as in the rest of society. The penchant for recycling family members has turned not just Parliament but even state Assemblies into veritable studios where politics has reborn as family soap opera; platforms that propagate politics as family sitcoms.
In the bare-knuckle world of Indian politics, the advantages of being from a successful political family are obvious. Name identification is one of the most valuable commodities in politics and there is often a solid network already in place because of dad or mom's political background. Other factors certainly drive a family inclination toward politics, not the least of which is a desire for public service. And there is the natural tendency to emulate a parent or a parental wish to engineer a political career for a child. On the other hand, the entry of family members of established politicians confers not just a modern version of medieval nobility but also near-unending privileges.
In the United States, the fusion of family and politics and the entry of sons, daughters, grandchildren and spouses in every layer of public office have given currency to a phrase - “new cronyism” - that is as much applicable to India. Politicians of every hue have been co-opted by a system that serves itself, not the people. The entry of clan members reinforces that system and gives rise to dynastic pedigrees. This dynamic could make biologists wonder if there is anything called the “political gene” and whether it contributes to a family’s interest in politics.
Is the family the central basis of human identity and of social values or is the entry of family members into the political theatre an operationalisation of what political scientists call elite succession? Any understanding of family-based elite succession in India must consider both the persistence of cultural tradition and the ways in which the current system has either reinforced or counteracted these traditions. There is no doubt that kinship politics, in which the family is seen as a cultural and institutional source, has historically played a central role in Indian democracy. The question that comes to the fore is whether the entrants undertake actions that are for public good and not just for personal gain.