Dynastic politics spells doom for parties

Lack of second-line leadership seems to have affected the national parties as well as the regional parties resulting in sort of a political vacuum.

The main reason for this is practicing dynastic politics. History shows that barring the communists and the BJP, all other parties are doing this. In the post-Independence period, a sort of feudal mentality prevailed both among the rulers and the ruled.

The biggest flaw in these dynastic based parties was that they never allowed second generation leadership to grow.

Though the Congress had gone through many up and downs and turbulences and was split into smaller groups, the main control always had been with the Nehru-Gandhi scions.

The hegemony of the Congress started suffering a dent as regional parties opposing the Congress started emerging.

The way the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) was formed and the manner in which it stormed to power in eight months' time of its formation is a well-known fact.

Similarly, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) led by Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) by Kanshiram and the Samajwadi Party (SP) by Mulayam Singh Yadav are some of the examples which had challenged the Congress and emerged as forces to be reckoned with. In Tamil Nadu, of course the fight always had been between the DMK and the AIDMK.

But then, now the wheel seems to have taken a full turn. All these regional parties have proved that they are no better than the Congress. None of them allowed the second line of leadership to emerge.

As a result, over a period of four decades, they are facing real trouble as they lack effective leadership. Then it was Congress and now it is the TDP and other regional parties which are going the same way.

All the regional parties had made a very good beginning inviting and encouraging young blood. But then all those first timers in politics have now become septuagenarians and octogenarians and yet they still don't want to make way for the younger ones, and they continue to handle everything.

Though a few youngsters have recently made their mark, they have not been given any major role as leaders. Nothing has been done to create second line young leaders.

We have seen how well Rammohan Naidu and Galla Jayadev had performed in Parliament during the last five years. They had forced even the Prime Minister to listen to them with rapt attention when they pointed out certain issues pertaining to bifurcation.

But then, their role was just restricted to that. In most of the parties, the youngsters are again sons and daughters of the top leaders of those respective parties.

Take for example, Akhilesh Yadav. He is son of Mulayam Singh Yadav. Though he was given a chance to become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for various reasons, the SP is now facing serious leadership crisis.

In Madhya Pradesh, the first Chief Minister Ravi Shankar Shukla was succeeded by his two sons in politics V C Shukla and SC Shukla. SC Shukla has been Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh three times.

In Rajasthan, Vasundhara Raje Scindia was in Parliament and later became the Chief Minister for Rajasthan twice. Her mother and brother were also in Parliament. Her son and nephew are also in politics. That's another type of dynasty.

In Haryana, Devilal who rose to the level of becoming the Deputy Prime Minister was succeeded by his son Om Prakash Chauthala and became the Chief Minister of the State.

Similarly, Sukhbir Singh, son of Prakash Singh Badal, is another such example where the sons of leaders entered politics.

In Bihar, it was Lalu Prasad Yadav who held sway over State politics for a very long time and later when he was sent to jail in the fodder case, he made his wife Rabri Devi the Chief Minister and now his sons are also in politics.

J&K is no exception. Take for example the Abdullah's. Sheikh Abdullah, his son Farookh Abdullah and his son Omar Abdullah. So is the case with Mufti Mohd Sayeed and later his daughter Mehbooba Mufti.

Coming down south, M K Stalin is the successor of M Karunanidhi.

Though Jayalalitha is a little exception to dynastic politics, she certainly is known as political heir of M G Ramachandran.

In TDP, it was NTR who was succeeded by his son-in-law who had split the party and now his son Nara Lokesh is virtually the number two. And what did Naveen Patnaik do before he became the Chief Minister of Orissa? He was the son of Biju Patnaik.

Power and constituencies in most of these States have been handed down for generations. If one tries to search for any young leader who does not belong to the family of leaders, it would be an effort in vain.

Well, nothing wrong in leaders promoting their sons but then others too should get equal chance to grow in party based on their merit. But the problem is all those leaders who talk about democracy, democratic values and empowerment of youth do not implement them.

If they are so concerned about promoting their children, then they should have followed Devi Lal who once said, "If I don't promote my son, whose sons should I promote?"

The main problem in Indian politics is that it has become more of a business than a profession. Just as one would leave the business to son or daughter, in politics too it is the father to son or daughter and so on.

This attitude has now started showing its impact. The survival of most of the national and regional parties is now threatened. One might say that though there was no dynasty issue in left parties they too are now almost vanished from the political scene.

But then that is their own making and for different reasons. The main problem in left parties again is not allowing the emergence of young leadership.

If one carefully analyses the BJP, it has always encouraged second line of leadership. Here the party ideology matters most. The party declines when its leaders fail to ignite the party rank and file and see that the ideology does not lose its appeal.

The top leaders in parties like the BJP and the left enjoy authority only if they retain their office. This helps the party make necessary corrections and bounce back in case it loses power.

In dynastic parties after the death of a charismatic leader, the sustenance of the party becomes difficult unless their successors are also charismatic or are willing to do away with family rule and usher in real democracy in the party.

This of course is a very difficult task. Even the Congress has failed to do so.