The issue of dynastic leadership has once again gained traction in the campaign for Assembly elections in three heartland states, where it has been the staple diet of electoral slugfests in recent years. While positioning himself as the antidote to the ills of dynastic politics, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has placed it at the center of his combative barbs.
But what if, going against the grain of political equality, it were argued that, paradoxically, dynastic politics had a paradoxical inclusive effect on Indian democracy and that dynastic politics had not been that bad for it? That was one of the observations made in studies that were published in the edited volume Democratic Dynasties: State, Party, and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2016) by political scientist Professor Kanchan Chandra and her colleagues at New York University. Chandra accurately documents the extent to which political dynasties have undermined democratic participation and contestation in Indian democracy. She argues, however, that dynasty has served as a quota-like safeguard for social groups that would otherwise struggle to gain representation in highly competitive contests among resourceful individuals. She wrote, in a piece that summarized the findings of the study, “Specifically, we found a high incidence of family connections among MPs of some social categories that struggle to find representation in politics through normal channels: women, Muslims, backward castes, and youth—none of whom have reservation in parliament.” In this way, it appears that dynastic ties in India serve the same purpose as quotas for members of underrepresented social groups.” However, these findings should not be interpreted as permitting dynastic politics. The researchers involved in the study are well aware of the study’s limited implications: “This does not mean that dynastic politics is a normatively desirable channel to bring about political inclusion.” The study also does not suggest this. However, “dynasticism has evolved into an informal, second-best means of overcoming some of the barriers to the entry of new groups into politics in an unequal polity, where there are already high barriers.” This suggests that, despite the fact that any democratic society would view dynastic politics as a violation of the spirit of democracy through entry barriers, the context of fledgling and complex democratic societies like India can also cause us to view it in a different light. It comes down to seeing the collateral benefits of it as a way to deepen democracy by making it possible for young people, who were previously held back by gerontocracy, religious minorities like Muslims, and social groups like OBCs to gain dynasty-facilitated representation when they are up against an opposition that is resourceful.