According
to social scientist Dye, “Elections are primarily a symbolic exercise that
helps to tie the masses to the established order.” Elections are a device to
divert and pacify the masses. The excitement and razzmatazz which is
particularly evident in Indian elections, serves as a Roman circus to entertain
and distract the mass of the population from the true nature of elite rule.
Elections create the illusion that power rests with the majority. They foster
the myth that the masses are directly participating in the political process.
They create the impression that the elite represents the interest of the
people. In this way elite rule is justified and legitimized.

Politics in terms of sociological
terms is a ‘closed system’. The occupants of this system belong to the highest
strata of the society. Social mobility is a constant phenomena. It’s an ‘open
system’; it allows people to climb the ‘class ladder’ through personal
achievements. But politics in India
occupies the topmost stratum in the Indian societal hierarchy. People of this stratum
cling on to status quo and prevent the entry of an ‘outsider’. This is clearly
evident during election time when party tickets are distributed to the kith and
kin of the political leaders irrespective of their credentials. A credible
common man, or a party worker misses the bus.
Our country is passing through a
transitional phase. The high economic growth couldn't be transformed into
inclusive growth. The hopes of an ‘aspirational India ’ has encountered an impasse.
The youth of this country nurtured high ambitions with an economist Prime
Minister at the helm, the nine percent growth rate, the tag of being an Asian
powerhouse, etc. The bubble has burst. The government can give excuses of a Euro crisis or a US debt
ceiling crisis, but the matter of fact remains that the government wasn't able
to utilize the ‘demographic dividend’ and the high economic growth rate with
adequate infrastructure facilities and job opportunities. Hence we are back to the ‘hindu rate of growth’.
This failure of the UPA government cannot be condoned and it will surely pay the
price.
2014 is an election year. There is
widespread hoopla regarding it. The kind of apathy experienced earlier, is not
witnessed now. Through various forms of media(electronic, print, social) the
average Indian is very conscious about the power of voting. India follows
representative democracy through parliamentary form of government. Unlike the
73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act( Panchayati
Raj and Zilla Parishad) where people directly participate in the decision
making process, the people elect their representatives during the general
elections. But let me ask you this question- who are these ‘people’ who
represent us? How are they elected to be elected by us? Do we elect them to serve
our interests or do they elect themselves to serve their own interests?
Indian politics has always been
marred by ‘AMORAL FAMILISM’. It is an expression that applies to family
politics of twenty first century India . It means a self centered,
family centric society which sacrifices the public good for the sake of
nepotism and immediate family. The mentality in a family run polity is “I don’t
do what is right, but what serves my family”. Loyalty matters more than
performance. It also leads to sycophancy. When family interests prevail,
political parties become weak and governments do not perform. The result is that
things don't get done; reforms slow down; roads and schools are not built.
Political families are a big threat to a liberal democratic order as is crony capitalism
of certain business families. Amoral Familism took its roots right from the
time of Pandit Nehru, when he suggested Indira’s name for the party president
post in 1959, in spite of the presence of
other party stalwarts. This reached it’s peak during the reign of Indira
Gandhi when the country was run on the whims and fancies of her son. Congress
leader Renuka Chaudhary justifies Amoral Familism when she says that the
leaders train their children their entire life so that they are ready when the
mantle is passed on.
Political families are not confined
to India
only. They have also existed in other successful democracies. The US (world’s highest democracy) has the Adams family, the Kennedys, and two Presidents from the
Bush family. But the basic difference with India is the impartial governance of
institutions in the western countries-their police, judiciary, bureaucracy are
more stronger, more robust and better able to stand up to the power of the
family. On the other hand, Indian institutions are incipient and fragile.
Certain investigation institutions such as the CBI act as tools at the hands of
the government.(was referred as ‘caged parrot’ bye the supreme court) Indians
could learn a profound lesson from the significant decline of nepotism and
hereditary privilege in parliamentary politics from the British House of
Commons.
In the present context, when we
talk of dynasty politics in India ,
the first name that comes to our mind is the blue eyed Gandhi scion Rahul Gandhi.
He first became a member of parliament in 2004. It’s been ten years now. He is
the Congress’s prime ministerial candidate and the entire congress bandwagon
rallies behind him to shield him from the scathing attack of the opposition and
the media. This usurps a debate of what credibility does he possess to get such
benefits? Only because of his surname? In the recently aired TIMES NOW
interview, to every question asked, he had one pre-scripted answer of ‘women
empowerment’. In public meetings, he says ‘Jhansi of Rani’ and promises to
change the system when he himself is the system. Do we want our future Prime
Minister to have such qualities?
The buck doesn’t stop here. In the
recently published MP/MLA list of candidates from UP, there are nine members from
the Yadav family. The Samajwadi party is without any doubt a ‘family firm’
where the family members have all the say in the political and administrative
decision making process. The Thackerays in Maharashtra, the Badals in Punjab,
DMK in Tamil Nadu, Lalu and his son in Bihar, the Abdullahs in Kashmir,etc. You
name it and dynastic politics exists in the heart and soul of this country. But
one should understand the difference between ‘dynasty’ and ‘legacy’. While
‘dynasty’ is characterized by fiefdom, ‘legacy’ is characterized by inner party
democracy and transparency in the selection of candidates. According to
Nepolean, dynastic politicians were “hereditary asses, imbeciles and a curse to
the nation”. In short, from Chirag Paswan to Aditya Thackeray to Tejaswini
Yadav, children of politicians routinely inherit the mantle in political
parties, which has led to the decadence of the Indian State .
It is interesting to point out that
not only in politics that we see the passing of the baton from father to son;
it is ubiquitous. The business houses of the Bajajs, the Birlas, the
Godrejs,etc. have all turned into family firms. The corporate honchos should
take a leaf out of Ratan Tata’s book. In the film industry, on a daily basis,
you see a star kid making his/her bollywood debut. The so called ‘self made’
actors are very rare. Even if they make an entry, they can’t sustain for too
long.
These
star kids talk about the various ‘pressures’ of being their father’s son and
that their real struggle starts from their second movie. But can you compare
this struggle with the struggle that an aspiring actor goes through in order to
make a name for himself in bollywood? Abhishek Bachchan and Sonam Kapoor still
make 2-3 movies a year while actors with genuine talent get sidelined!!! But
the basic difference between politics and other sphere is that people enter
politics to serve the people and not to make self utilitarian profits; they are
people’s representative and its their moral obligation to serve people’s interest.
The 2014 general elections has caught
the nerve and imagination of the entire nation. I, being a part of the youth
brigade and a political enthusiast, ‘m no different. The citizens are more
knowledgeable and understand the quagmire of politics. The promise of freebies
and the act of ‘social engineering’ won’t fare that well this time. The
political centre of gravity is shifting towards right. While the UPA government
lifted millions of people out of the BPL category through NREGA and Food security Act,
it led to massive fiscal as well as current account deficit, putting added
burden on the national exchequer. While ‘bharat’ was taken care of, ‘India was
ignored’. There were no reforms introduced due to policy paralysis.
As a citizen of this great country, I
want to serve my people and society. Although I can serve the society in many
ways, but the real vehicle of change lies in the ability to legislate policies
that would serve a large number of people in an effective manner. I’m twenty
five and eligible to contest elections. But my father is not a politician. How
do I get a ticket? Don’t I deserve to get an opportunity to enter the political
arena? But will the ‘closed system’ of elite people allow me that?