Election 9: India's Political Dynasties vs. Democracy

India is the world's biggest democracy. People directly vote their representatives and local executives. And they are doing it now, in India's general elections 2014, happening in various phases from April 07 to May 12, 2014.

I like this article by a good friend, Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute (LI) in Delhi. Originally posted in LI website last April 09, and reposted in EFN Asia website last April 11. For brevity purposes, I removed certain details from the original article so that readers here can focus on Barun's general argument,

dynasties may exist in politics but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to (this). Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

Check the two links above to read the article in full. The photos I got from the web and not part of Barun's original article. Enjoy reading.

Diminishing electoral dividend for the political dynasties

Barun Mitra

Any discussion on dynastic politics in drawing rooms or in the media, usually degenerates in to a slanging match. One side tries to wrap itself in a democratic halo, and who see political dynasties as anathema in democratic polity. The other side aggressively argues that after all the dynasts do have to get democratically elected too and therefore legitimate.

Hardly any political party is immune from their own dynasties, small or big. The list of candidates related to political families in the 2014 election is a long one indeed.

But how do political dynasties stand out in terms of political performance? Do successive generations measure up to their famous ancestors? Why do some families make their mark on the political landscape, while others fail? Is there legitimate space in a democracy for favoured families? Are political dynasties an aberration in a democracy where at least at the time of the ballot, every citizen is truly seen as equal? Or does the focus on political dynasties diverts our attention from the truly equalising impact of a democracy?

The Nehru-Gandhi family is of course seen as the standard bearer of political dynasties in the democratic world. Since Independence in 1947, three members of the family has been elected as India's prime ministers, another son became notorious for wielding enormous extra constitutional power, without actually holding any elected office. A daughter in law came quite close to the ultimate political position, but political necessity ensured that she renounce office. And a son who seemed reluctant to join the race, and can't figure out either to get off the track, or take the plunge whole-heartedly.

This is the beaten track, travelled many times in the past. However, what seems to have been almost completely missed by the critics and supporters of political dynasties is that like in all other fields of life, there is a consistent diminishing returns for the dynasties in politics.

Motilal Nehru was the patriarch, and twice president of the Indian National Congress, during the British colonial rule. But it was his son Jawaharlal Nehru, a protégé of the original Gandhi, the Mohandas K Gandhi, who became India's first prime minister.

Nehru won three successive general elections and was in office from 1947 to 1964. Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter was selected for the post by a powerful section of the party bosses to be India's Prime Minister, following the untimely death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, in 1966. Indira was in office through the tumultuous days of the emergency rule, till 1977,when she became the first of the many prime ministers since to lose a general election. Although she led her party to another victory in 1980, and had yet another turbulent term in office, she was assassinated in 1984 by her own bodyguards.  Mrs Gandhi held the high office for about 15 years.

Rajiv Gandhi took office within a few days of his mother's tragic death in 1984, swept the elections a couple of months later, and won an unprecedented 3/4ths majority in Parliament. He came in with great hope, but in the later half of his term his government got embroiled in corruption scandals and political crisis, and lost the general election in 1989. Since then the Congress party has never been able to win a majority of seats in any general election. And no one from the Nehru-Gandhi family has been the prime minister in the past 25 years.

No one can say with certainty whether another one from the fabled family will become India's elected prime minister in the foreseeable future. This dynasty has clearly seen better days. Democracy has been a great leveller.

Not surprisingly, the other political families in India have not done any better. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a political family whose star is on the ascendant.

Charan Singh, once a very powerful chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, went on to hold the prime minister's post for only a few months, and became the first PM who never faced the Lok Sabha….

In Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena had been led for decades by the fire brand Balasaheb Thackrey….

In the small but prosperous state of Punjab, one family, the Badals, has survived the past 3 decades. Following the decade long separatist violence in the state in the 1980s, the society started picking up the threads again in the early 1990s….

In the Himalayan state of Jammu & Kashmir, the family of Sheikh Abdullah has been the preeminent political family since the 1950s….

There are many lesser families, which have survived but experienced diminishing political status…There are countless other examples of offsprings trying to wear the mantle of their ancestors, and failing.

So far, the only exception to this diminishing political trajectory traversed by the dynasties, has perhaps been the Patnaik family in Orissa….

Political dynasties may get a head start, but ultimately they have to perform to meet voters' expectations, or perish.

While every political party has its own dynasties, preeminent or localised, equally every party has tried to leverage a split in the dynasties to undermine the family brand. The most famous schism is in the Nehru-Gandhi family, where the widow and son of Sanjay Gandhi, are today prominent members of the BJP…

There are many members of parliament who come from political families. But equally there are many others who try to enter politics on the back of their family connections, but fail to make a mark electorally. The numbers in the latter category would be far larger than the former category. Unfortunately, there is no register of documenting familial ties among those in politics.

But one thing is clear, dynasties may exist in politics, but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to the deep roots democracy has struck in the country.

Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

---------

Other articles by Barun Mitra in this blog: 
Energy Econ 3: Market Reforms in India's Electricity Sector, July 30, 2012 
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
EFN Asia 34: Rainer Adam and Economic Freedom in Asia, March 11, 2014

See also:

Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013 
Election 7: My Candidates for Senators, May 12, 2013 

Election 8: Growth, Debt and the 2013 Polls, May 30, 2013  

EFN Asia 22: Dealing with Economic Nationalism, Jeju Forum, June 03, 2013 

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty

* This is my guest post in antipinoy.com today.
---------

Getting voters’ support is mainly about political branding. Political parties as engines of politicians to capture political power, national and local, are originally Ideology-based. Meaning they represent unique ideologies and political philosophies that are distinguishable from each other.

This is not happening in the Philippines and many other countries. Here, almost all political parties promise or say the same things – more populism, expand welfare and subsidies, expand regulations, do not cut or reduce taxes, good governance, fight corruption – even if many of the politicians in those parties are associated with corrupt practices in the past and present.

So voters cannot distinguish one political party from the other. The only clear distinction they can make is on the personalities who lead those parties. The old political names and clans that have been there for several decades. In short, the use of clans as main political brand, not the political parties, and many voters have accepted this shift in political branding.

The major political ideologies are socialism/communism, liberalism/free market, and conservatism/authorititarity. See an earlier discourse with definitions here, Collectivism, Conservatism and Liberalism. But variants have been invented, like social democracy (soc-dem), liberal democracy (lib-dem), national democracy (nat-dem), social liberals (soc-libs), social conservatism, christian democracy, environmentalism, and so on. Their definitions can interlap and be varied, depending on who is defining what.

In the Philippine Senatorial elections this coming Monday, May 13, 2013, these family names are the front runners: Legarda, Binay, Cayetano, Aquino, Escudero, Ejercito/Estrada, Poe, Pimentel, Villar.

Nancy Binay is a never-heard lady nationally until November 2012. When she was drafted to the UNA senatorial slate last December, she suddenly belonged to the top 15. Now she is ranked 3-4. She is the eldest daughter of Vice President Jojo Binay, her sister is Makati Congresswoman Abi Binay, and her brother is Makati Mayor Junjun Binay.

Alan Cayetano is the son of former Senator Rene Cayetano, his sister is current Senator Pia Cayetano.

Bam Aquino is the first cousin of President Noynoy Aquino, who is the son of former President Cory Aquino and nephew of former Senators Butz Aquino and Tessie Aquino-Oreta.

JV Ejercito is the son with the other woman of former Vice President Erap Estrada. His half brother is current Senator Jinggoy Estrada, whose mother, Loi Estrada, was also a former Senator.

A friend, Singapore-based Pinoy, Doods de los Reyes, made this observation about Nancy Binay and the other political clans.

Ibalik na lang ang two-party system para tigilan na din yung padding ng mga kumakandidato at piling-pili lang talaga yung lalaban.

Kumbaga sa liga ng basketball, madaming team pero konti lang yung magaling sa bawat team tapos pati yung dating nag-ballboy ng 20 years sa ibang team kinuha mo na ring player para lang mapuno yung roster mo ng 12 na pangalan.

Ikumpara mo sa All Star game, dalawa lang ang team pero lahat magagaling at deserving. Tapos huhugot ka sa dalawang naglalaban ng cream of the crop na matatawag mo nang Dream Team. Siguro naman deserving din ang Pilipino na pang-Dream Team level ang magre-represent sa atin sa politika. Tama na ang larong buko, Dream Team naman ang suportahan natin.

(Let us go back to the two-party system to stop padding of candidates and only the chosen ones can run. Like in a basketball league, there are many teams but only a few good players in each team. The former ballboys for 20 years in other teams are tapped just to complete the 12 players roster.

Compare it with the All Star game, only two teams and both are good and deserving. Then you get players from both teams and get the cream of the crop to be called the Dream Team. Filipinos deserve a Dream Team to represent Philippine politics. Enough of coconut games, let us support a Dream team)

I like Doods’ proposal to go back to the two-party system. Usually the debates in public policy can be narrowed down to public choice of more or less government. Do we need more regulations or less? More taxes or less? Are 10 signatures and permits to start and renew a business enough (and be increased) or should they be reduced? The two-party system can address that debate in a clear, direct and more explicit way. Many opportunists and thieves hide in grey areas aka 3rd or 4th or 5th opinion and political parties.

Like the basketball league example of Doods, politicians in a two-party system are forced to undergo a party convention. They have to convince their party mates first before they can convince the rest of the voters. In a multi-party system with no follow up elections for the top two parties, even the lousiest but megalomaniac and moneyed candidates can put up a party anytime and run for elections.

Doods added:

Typical Philippine scenario: a political personality is not picked up as a candidate by any existing party so he sets up his own. Checks the surveys to see what issues the voting majority care about and then bases the new party's platform on these issues while taking the popular position. Forms his team from whoever is available with the name, looks, personality, political pedigree (however long ago that was), or a last name that fits with whatever catchy acronym the party can come up with a-la Words With Friends. Launch the party and barnstorm the countryside with backup dancers and karaoke CDs, dance choreographers, and cohorts who will ask the planted questions. Wash, rinse, and repeat as necessary for the succeeding elections.

Again, I agree with Doods’ observation. One good example was former President Fidel V. Ramos (FVR). He has no political party then, so he joined Laban Party and squared with former House Speaker Ramon Mitra in the 1991 Party convention. He lost, so he put up his own political party, Lakas. With many other Presidential candidates in the 1991 elections, Ramos got only about one third of the total votes but he was number 1, so he became President.

Another example is Senator Miriam Santiago. It seemed that no major political party was interested to get her and endure her mouth, so she put up her own party, the People's Reform Party (PRP) where she ran for President also in the 1992 elections. Her party did not attract many known politicians, it was put up mainly for her candidacy.

Uf people have to finger-point "who's to blame" for the low political maturity of the Filipino voters, we can point the finger to the political parties themselves because of their failure to stick to ideology-based political branding.

The party list (PL) system has further bastardized and idiotized the ideology-based political branding. There are too many PLs that advance no unique political ideology, they only advance their sectoral, parochial, or industry interests. Thus, they only contribute to political opportunism and corruption in the country.

There is no need to enact an “anti-political dynasty” law. So long as political parties say and promise the same things, political dynasties and the politics of personalities are here to stay.

So in the next round of Constitutional change, the PL system should be abolished and we must consider a return to the two party system.

-----------

See also:Election Watch 2: On Celebrities as Politicians, August 19, 2012
Election Watch 3: Defining Celebrities, Politicians and the State, August 30, 2012 
Election Watch 4: Senatoriables on Healthcare, March 08, 2013 
Election Watch 5: Sin Tax Law, Hospital Over-regulation and Senatoriables, May 07, 2013