Rather than take as an axiom that no dynast can survive in a true Indian democracy, I would regard it as a hypothesis- albeit a good one that has maybe ~80% probability of holding true. It does seem to be the case that a dynast in India essentially survives on appeasement of strong minority interests which in a FPTP system can ensure repeated electoral wins.Sanku wrote:The axiom here is of course no dynast can survive in a true democracy, if however a dynast can indeed establish himself democratically, he is no longer a dynast but a Appointed kingly ruler in the old Indian mold (a Indian king would also often win elections on popularity quite easily) -- even if born in a family.
However, it is also true that the concept of family / lineage is far more central to an Indian voter's thinking than to one in the West. Just take as example the number of star-progeny and khandaans that populate Bollywood....clearly there is a cultural tendency in India that judges people by their family background / surname more than for their individual strengths. I would therefore not rule out the possiblity that Indians in general have a tendency to give more weightage to surname than compared with the West.
Rather than concluding that this means he is no longer a dynast but more like a popular king - I would look for an extra means / regulation to ensure that what I would regard as an Indian failing does not lead to subversion of core principles of democracy. The US prohibits anyone from standing for more than 2 terms as President - so even if Bill Clinton could have won the popular vote if that rule were not there - the US constitution very rightly puts a bar on it. Similarly, even if the popular vote in India does go to a dynast there has to be some limit such that family rule does not cross a bar that can be regarded as egregious.
You might ask , what exactly is egregious? Well, that is to be defined....but the 5th member of a dynasty taking control of nation's destiny as PM / Party President within a period of six decades - definitely crosses the bar several times over. It is feudalistic, and by concentrating power in a single family / oligopoly stifles meritocracy and promotes corruption. So long-short if this is, in the event that resolving FPTP (presumably through runoff for top 2 candidates) still does not result in elimination of dynastic politics - then specific limits on families occupying PM / Party President posts need to be brought in.
From the prominence given for a wishy-washy "invite" (by some Cong cousin, not Shree Hazare himself) to giving the ungal to Shree Bhushan (sliding in a sneaky "miracle" djinn type escape from death during war with paquis etc) to the resignations of Kore Kammittee members (who suddenly found they have more important things to do than weed out corruption).