Maharashtra's family business

13

Tweet

If one were searching for representative images about the election in Maharashtra, what should one pitch for? The acrimony between the Thackeray cousins? The rebellion by Vinay Natu, BJP MLA and son of ex-MLA from Konkan? The sight of Poonam Mahajan campaigning in Ghatkopar in Mumbai? Gopinath Munde trying to explain why his daughter has been given a ticket? Sushilkumar Shinde's despearation in getting Pawar to campaign for his daughter Pranoti from Solapur? Or Vilasrao Deshmukh tamely defending why sons and daughters of politicians deserve tickets? Perhaps the candidature of son of the first citizen of India may win in this competition for images that represent subversion of democracy. The ongoing election process for state assembly of Maharashtra has probably brought in sharp relief this single subversion of democracy that can only be described as the family welfare project.

In defending the decision to give the ticket to Raosaheb Shekhawat (son of the President of India) by sidelining the two-time MLA and minister in the outgoing government, Sunil Deshmukh, state Congress president pointed out that the sitting MLA had been given enough opportunity and now new people needed to be given opportunity. Worthy sentiments, indeed. Only, would he have done this if the 'new' candidate did not happen to be the son of the President of India? On his part, the son has lamely pointed out that his ticket has nothing to do with his mother's position; that he himself has been working for 'last one and half years' in this constituency. We wonder, since when the Congress started giving tickets to those having such a huge experience?

But this is not only a story of the President's son getting the ticket. Nor is this issue confined only to the Congress. The ongoing election process in Maharashtra has sharply brought forward the issue of family and succession in our democratic politics. The issue is not new. But two dimensions of the issue deserve attention: so far, some parties used to criticize the Congress for its 'dynastic' politics. Now, every party seems to have 'congressized' their recruitment process. As for the smaller and state level parties, this was already in the offing since these parties hinged on one leader and her/his family. That great Hindu characteristic of affinity to family has now struck the Hindutva party also! So, on this issue of dynastic politics, no party would now criticize the other. In the times of parties becoming more and more similar, this is an additional similarity that has now emerged.

Secondly, the 'dynasty' principle was more strongly applicable at the leadership level so far. Lower rung workers would sulk, often try to push their kin; but now family has become the norm. Whatever level of politics you are engaged in, the right of the kin to claim the seat as a matter of routine is now increasingly being recognized by all.

Two broad points can be made in the context of this sudden eruption of familial affinity among the political class. One is that politicians increasingly face the crisis of keeping in tact their social base. As politics loses the anchor of searching for common public good, it becomes more and more difficult to generate support for political activity. That is why most politicians have now given up the task of building caste blocs and instead shifted to clan-based networks and family as the basis of politics. Caste blocs can be mobilized by appeal to some limited edition of public good; family based mobilizations require even narrower appeals and allow shrinkage of the idea of common good through politics.

Secondly, the activity called politics is seen more and more as a business proposition. In fact, some politicians would point out that if a doctor's son becomes a doctor, nobody is surprised, then why so in the case of the politician? The implication is clear-that politics is business and in a country where businesses are often family-based, the business of politics too will be family-based. The family model of business is worth examining. Resources remain in the family; family networks can be used for developing loan links, trading links etc. The family munimji keeps all the secrets and oral transactions can be undertaken safely. Are our politicians too, depending on family precisely for similar reasons? Curious as it may seem, political actors are less and less interested in power--politics does not give them (only) power any more, nor do they seek (only) power through politics. A doctor's son/daughter becomes doctor with a view to taking over the father's (or mother's) practice eventually. When a politician's son/daughter enters the political arena, she/he takes over the networks of resources and of resource mobilization that the family has developed. That is why there is so much desperation in getting tickets for family members. When politics becomes pure business, family is invoked as a strategy to protect and enhance resources.

The unfolding 'family drama' in Maharashtra needs to be seen within this larger context.

(The author teaches political science at the University o Pune.)