ANORMAL FAMILISM AND POLITICS OF ASPIRATION

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.

                 The evolution of Indian political system has been something that needs to be introspected carefully. The political leaders of this country have perpetually beguiled the masses with a veil of optimism and hope. But the entire political class has always been in the pursuit of maintenance of status quo. The propagators of ‘elite theory’ suggest that elections result in the circulation of the bourgeoisie i.e. replacement of one elite group by another. The Marxian philosophy subscribes direct participation through ‘proletariat revolution’ and dismantling of state, such an ideology remains a thought only. The pluralists are of the opinion that ‘representative democracy’ is best suited to a country like India since direct participation in the political affairs by such diverse masses is a utopian concept. Religion, caste, community play a major role in the ‘winability’ factor. This gives birth to various ‘interest groups’ which owe their allegiance to their respective caste/community leaders. There are two spaces in the politics in India- those who look ahead and aspire and those who look back and complain. India’s political parties carter to the second- to the victim in us through their politics of grievance. Mayawati’s ‘social engineering’ of the dalit voters is a classic example of this. Hence direct participation would be detrimental to the entire democratic ideal.

             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 73^rd and 74^th 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?