Patricia Mukhim
Many may not agree with me when I raise the issue of why political dynasties in a democracy are a troubling dichotomy. In fact quite a few people I know, point to the United States where political power has been concentrated in a few families. But is that good for India? Or closer home for Meghalaya? That this is happening in a tribal society where the right to any public resources is not by virtue of one’s birth but on merit, also tells us that we have imbibed many of what’s wrong in the Indian mainstream society where political dynasties are now part of this country’s political cosmos. Dynastic politics started with the Nehru-Gandhi family and it is but natural that Congress party men and women would choose to model their career paths on the first family of Indian politics.
Political scholars Levitsky and Way were the first to coin the concept of competitive authoritarianism. They define competitive authoritarianism as, “a regime wherein political elites operate under formal democratic institutions and election is the only way for leadership transition, but the incumbents have flexibility to manipulate the playing field for their electoral advantage.” The crux of their argument is that while competition does exist and oppositional forces have an opportunity to replace the incumbent, but the playing field is unequal. The authors contend that one of the distinguishing features of competitive authoritarianism is unfair competition. The inequality of the playing field is marked by three factors: (1) the ability of the incumbent to exploit state institutions (2) special treatments that are directed to support the incumbent’s advantage (3) subtle discrimination against the opposition’s attempts to organize and compete.
The National Peoples’ Party (NPP) candidate Conrad Sangma is a product of dynasty as much as Dr Mukul Sangma’s wife Dikkanchi D Shira is. Anyone looking in from the outside would think that there are not enough faces in the politics of Garo Hills other than the Sangmas. Not that the Khasi Hills or Jaintia Hills are far behind. While Conrad Sangma will invoke his late father’s legacy, Dikkanchi Shira’s campaign will largely be led by her husband, r Mukul Sangma who will launch a frontal attack on the NPP’s truck with the BJP.
One of the reasons why Narendra Modi was voted in 2014 is because the voters were fed up of dynastic politics and its accumulation of powers. The Congress Party is known to have been behind many a scam and it does not take too much intelligent mind to know who the largest beneficiary of those scams are. Ironically, the more the scams, the firmer is the grip on the Congress Party by the dynasty. Well meaning leaders within the Congress Party don’t have the gumption to defy Sonia Gandhi. Anyone daring to do that will be shown the door. There is just too much at stake for her. It is not easy to maintain a lifestyle where Rahul Gandhi can take off to foreign locales at the drop of a hat. Rahul Gandhi may kick up a storm about, “suit-boot ki sarkar,” but does he not frequent some of the high end, plush hotels of this country and abroad where a gourmet cuisine is served upon being summoned? The double standards stink!
And then this country has the horror of seeing deal after defence deal where huge commissions were paid. And all of them with Italian links! Yet Congress lackeys continue to defend the dynasty. And because it’s kosher for the dynasty to rule this country so it’s fine for smaller satraps in the states to also follow suit. Now, state level leaders nurture pocket boroughs for their wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, et al. And now it is not just the Congress but other political parties that have started treating their constituencies like an heirloom.
Jonathan Zimmerman who teaches history and education at New York University, once said of the US, “We tell the world that we’re a land of opportunity, where anyone can grow up to be the president. Then we limit ourselves to a handful of political dynasties.” Zimmerman says this is not healthy for American democracy! Obama was a rare exception! He adds that politics and law are generally the sources of family wealth and professional identity and these families either are rich or soon become rich in Washington. This is exactly the opposite of what America needs today.
So what’s wrong with political dynasties? First, we deprive others who might be capable of contesting and who could bring in fresh ideas. Second, there is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few families, which is the antithesis of democracy. Thirdly, we have seen that most politicians in our state are self-serving. While they have not been able to change the faces of their constituencies and constituents, they have certainly changed their family fortunes; so much so their children are now educated in America, the UK or Australia. How many non-politicians, non-bureaucrats and non-business people can do that? And how did the wealth accrue to each of these three categories of people? Is it not public money stealthily siphoned off in a well-oiled system? Show me one business person in Meghalaya who is a true entrepreneur and did not start as a Fair Price Shop Owner or wholesaler of food-grains or owned a coal mine (the most extractive and exploitative business)?
My simple question to the voters is: Does being part of a dynasty impart one with greater political wisdom or a higher level of achievement? The answer is a resounding. “No.” Wisdom and talent are fortunately not genetically endowed. The environment plays a more dominant role. Parents who are geniuses don’t necessarily produce a genius. Doctors don’t beget doctors or sportspersons another sporting offspring! So political competence is not an inherited trait either!
Scanning several literature to understand the perils of dynastic politics I came a across a study by Yoes C Kenawas (Arryman Fellow Research Paper, May 2015), titled, “The Rise of Political Dynasties in a Democratic Society.” Kenawa finds that political dynasties are a stumbling block to democratic consolidation and erode the quality of democracy. Above all, dynastic politics is a source of corruption, a root cause of underdevelopment, and an obstacle to another reformist candidate’s ability to occupy office. His studies reveal that the rise of political dynasties happen primarily because of the ability of the incumbent dynastic politician to create an “uneven playing field,” by exploiting family networks and material wealth to help his/her family member/s to win office. Family networks are useful for politicians to exercise various forms of an informal, “menu of manipulation,” such as vote buying, misappropriation of state financial resources and infrastructure, politicization of state institutions (mobilization of state apparatuses), and intimidation through thug groups. Additionally, unlike political dynasties in developed democracies that rely on family name, self-perpetuation of political power by dynastic politicians in consolidating democracies like India relies more on their material wealth to win an election.
It is no secret that our politicians are in hot pursuit of material wealth the moment they are elected. Much of that wealth is accumulated through illicit funding mechanisms such as manipulating the state budget and receiving kickbacks from business. Whenever dynastic politicians lose their grip on territorial control, their ability to consolidate and expand their dynastic control diminishes. In short, dynastic politicians in a consolidating democracy may capture public office to create, strengthen, or expand their power base through a democratic process, i.e., election, but by exercising anti-democratic methods. Therefore, the capacity of a politician to create, consolidate, and expand his/her political dynasty depends on (1) the strength of the informal family network ( 2) the size of accumulated material wealth garnered by using his/her status as an incumbent. These two factors help dynastic politicians to create an arena of uneven competition that seriously hinders the opposition from capturing office both at the central and state level.
Why do elected politicians need to build a political dynasty? They do that in order to mitigate the risks that may occur during and/or after they step down from office, including legislative opposition during their tenure, possible defeat in the re-election campaign, and potential prosecution after leaving office. The last one is what many fear the most. In cases where holding office is an important source of illegal wealth or is used to defend business interests, dynastic capture of offices is strongly favored. Incumbents select family members to replace them in their position and/or to strengthen their power base primarily because family members are most trusted. Gibson calls this “boundary control.”
We are seeing this being played out before our eyes in Meghalaya and at one point I thought the only brave guy who dared to stick his neck out was Rophul Syntang Marak. The guy has now backed out and we can guess why. This election is one to watch out for. Will money and extensive yet subtle use of the state machinery win the day or will people take a different view of the mid-term Tura Lok Sabha poll? May the best man/lady win! But in this situation how do you define ‘best?’