One of the main advantages the Bharatiya Janata Party has had over its principal rival, the Congress, is that the former is not a family-driven party. The space for family-run political parties across the country is shrinking, and the BJP has used this to its great advantage. This is also one of the main reasons for its continued phenomenal success.
Be it in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar or Odisha, the BJP has benefitted mainly at the cost of family-run parties. Not to speak of the pan-India level, where the BJP has continuously dominated over the “family-run Congress” during the last several General Elections. Even when the BJP remained out of power, it marked a significant presence in Parliament.
Now Bihar will be one of the important test cases for the future of family-run political parties in the country. The Rashtriya Janata Dal, founded by former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and now headed by his son Tejashwi Yadav, remains the fulcrum of the opposition alliance there, with the Congress and other parties being the junior partners. It is not only the BJP but also the newly founded Jan Suraaj Party, set up by prominent political strategist Prashant Kishor, which will be posing an existential challenge to the RJD.
At one time, Indian political space, particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s, was dominated by family-driven parties from north to south. In Jammu and Kashmir, it was the National Conference, controlled by the Abdullah family, as also the People’s Democratic Party, controlled by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s family; in Punjab, the Shiromani Akali Dal, controlled by the Badal family; the Indian National Lok Dal in Haryana, controlled by Devi Lal’s family; the Samajwadi Party, controlled by Mulayam Singh Yadav; the Bahujan Samaj Party, controlled by Mayawati, which she inherited from Kanshi Ram; the RJD, controlled by Lalu Yadav; the Nationalist Congress Party in Maharashtra, controlled by Sharad Pawar; as also the Shiv Sena; and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, controlled by the Karunanidhi family. The biggest example, rather an absurd joke on democracy, was when Lalu Yadav picked his wife, Rabri Devi, to become the Chief Minister when he himself was jailed in the fodder scam.
There are two other prominent political parties, the Aam Aadmi Party and the Trinamool Congress, which, though not so far controlled by a single family, are definitely controlled by just one single person: Arvind Kejriwal and Mamata Banerjee. Their word is the law in their parties, making them no different from other family-run parties. In fact, the AAP amended its constitution to make Kejriwal its convenor for life.
Right now, it is the Abdullah family in J&K and the Karunanidhi family in Tamil Nadu who are in power in their respective states. Most of the other political parties are facing an existential crisis, be it the Shiromani Akali Dal, the NCP, the Shiv Sena, the PDP or the INLD. In the last General Elections, the Samajwadi Party did manage a better performance in Uttar Pradesh in alliance with the Congress.
Interestingly, all these political parties have been talking about “social justice” as their prime political mission, while mostly banking on caste and sectarian politics, ensuring that power remained within the family.
Also read: Similar trajectory for Badals and Thackerays
With the BJP’s continued dominance at the national level, these regional parties have to some extent served its purpose. Not only do these parties contribute to the division of opposition votes in different states, but they also help the BJP consolidate its base and position through “reverse polarisation”.
With the Congress also pursuing the same agenda as the regional parties, be it in terms of control over the organisation or the issues it takes up, the BJP remains in an advantageous position. Because, criticism from opposition parties aside, the BJP has managed to successfully carry out “social engineering” among its core political base, be it through the Ram Janmabhoomi movement or reaching out to deprived sections of society. Besides, the BJP has managed to reinforce the perception that family-driven political parties work more for the interest of the “families” than the party, let alone the country.
Family-driven parties have another major handicap, as there is no scope for talented leadership to grow. No matter how talented a leader may be, they cannot aspire to be at the top, be it the Congress or any other family-driven political party. In fact, the main criticism against the Congress right now is that it has not been able to move away from the Gandhi family, despite a good number of talented leaders being present. The truth about the position of the Congress president, Mallikarjun Kharge, who was “elected” only due to the blessings of the Gandhi family, is not lost on anyone.
The saving grace for the Congress, however, is that it manages to retain hold in a number of states. That is because the party in these states has not been in control of a single family. It learnt the hard way in Haryana, where it tried to hand over complete command to the Hooda family and lost badly, despite being thought to be in a winning position.
Other than the BJP, it was the Left parties, the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which did not let a single family or person gain control over the organisation. The Left parties were decimated for other reasons, though, as they remained stubborn about their ideology, refusing to make any amends under changed circumstances across the country.
There is a difference between families continuing in politics and gaining complete control over political parties. It is not that there is no nepotism in the BJP. The party does have second-generation leaders who have inherited politics from their parents and are in politics only because of them. But the party as a whole has not been under the control and command of a single family for generations, as is the case with the Congress and other smaller or regional parties.
The trend of people moving away from family-run political parties is a good and healthy development for democracy, which in no case should be hereditary.
Follow us
