Lessons From Britain: Dynastic Politics And Failed Politicians Must Go

India will be a lesser democracy till dynastic politics persists and family rule trumps meritocracy.

Soon after losing the general election, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg resigned from leaderships of their respective parties. The re-elected British Prime Minister, David Cameron, also made his decision public not to seek a third term.

This is the essence of democracy. This is not how it happens in India. After losing the 2004 general election, A. B. Vajpayee decided in his mind not to run again. This was the understanding gained by the public but never made explicit by Vajpayee. He should have. It would have set in train a nice tradition.

L. K. Advani, whose ambitions run ahead of his talent, persisted for the top spot after Vajpayee withdrew. He stepped aside following a public reprimand from the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh to permit a younger leadership to have the running of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Advani, however, weaselled back to be the party’s prime minister candidate in 2009. Defeat further stoked his ambition to try a second time in 2014. Cadre protests compelled the nomination of Narendra Modi. The rest is history.

Cadres don’t count in the Indian National Congress (INC). The party has a top-down leadership. This has been both the party’s misfortune and that of India. India has been poor and backward for the sixty years of Congress rule because of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. While the dynasty has prospered, India and its people have sunk lower.

The British example of immediate and decisive leadership change in defeat and reverse (the best modern example is Winston Churchill taking over when Neville Chamberlain failed against Nazi Germany) has both a general and a particular application in the Indian context. In this case, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a role to play.

In last year’s general election campaign, Modi called for a “Congress-mukt Bharat”. The electorate heeded the plea. The Congress should have been disbanded after independence as M. K. Gandhi sought. Jawaharlal Nehru was attracted to a personal fiefdom. That fiefdom must be eviscerated even at the cost of the Indian National Congress getting some default reprieve.

The Congress may be a force of some good if the Nehru-Gandhis are removed. For example, Manmohan Singh is not without abilities. He was equal to the responsibilities placed on him by P. V. Narasimha Rao to reform the economy. The Nehru-Gandhis, on the other hand, reduced him to a cipher and an object of ridicule.

The Congress has other worthwhile people. It is impolitic to identify them to dynasty guillotines. They may not wish to join the Bharatiya Janata Party for various reasons including a desire not to appear as turncoats. But they have a capacity to contribute to the country. It is for their sake that the Congress must be mukt of the dynasty.

How can Modi help? While running a sharp political campaign against the dynasty, he must prop up valuable Congress leaders within the limitations imposed by his belonging to a rival party. With Congress chief ministers, he should not find this problematic, anomalous or odd. He is duty-bound as prime minister to assist states without discrimination. Individual Congress leaders doing good work could also be quietly encouraged. Building goodwill across political parties is necessary for effective prime ministry.

But this writer also seeks to address larger concerns in the process. A country as big and complex as India and rambunctiously democratic at all levels needs vital consensus on key issues. One of these is economic reforms. Reforms are no longer a luxury. Youthful India has to be made productive and profitable before its huge internal energies become self-destructive.

Consensus on reforms between the BJP and the Congress even in its present diminished state would hurtle the country ahead. The Nehru-Gandhis remain the principal hurdle. A dynasty-free Congress may better suit the strategic purposes of the BJP than uprooting the Congress all at once. A known adversary is sometimes advisable to an unknown foe. Besides, a Congress shorn of dynasty might nudge other parties to shed the Mulayam Singh, Laloo Prasad and M. Karunanidhis of the world.

India will be a lesser democracy till dynastic politics persists and family rule trumps meritocracy.