Democracy & Family-arity
In a country or in a political party, the view of the majority is commonly accepted in Democracy. As per democratic norms, recognition of the opinion of the majority should be accepted. In India, people enjoy their Democratic Rights, and cast their votes during elections. Unfortunately, the majority of the Indian political outfits don’t elect their respective party leaderships. A handful of senior party leaders run the parties in the world’s Largest Democracy. It seems that these wise men have become the decision-makers because of their knowledge (about almost everything). Hence, some Indian political parties have preferred Dynastic Leadership in an attempt to rule the South Asian nation. Apart from the Left parties and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS; an Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation), almost all the major political parties in India are being run by different Families. As expected, public sentiment for these families, and not ideology, has become the guiding force for these political outfits.
Political analysts believe that the tradition of Hero Worship has always influenced Indian Democracy. That is why parties, run by non-democratic manner, are playing an important role in safeguarding Indian Democracy. Unfortunately, this sort of organisation cannot work in the long run because the criteria for eligibility to lead a party here are based on blood relations and kinship. These types of parties often underestimate ideology, policies, dedication, performance, knowledge, etc. No wonder, Rahul Gandhi or Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have not yet proven to be the saviours of the Indian National Congress (INC, the main Opposition party in India). The oldest political party of India is currently struggling hard to survive.
Perhaps, the Nehru-Gandhi Family has failed to realise the fact that Dynastic Leadership is contrary to Democracy, and also to the long-term interests of a party. So, it is the duty of the State to protect the rights of minorities in democracy. It is also the duty of the State to protect the members and supporters of parties which face electoral defeat.
One should also keep in mind that the opinion of the majority often failed to protect Rights of the common people in the past. Germany in 1932-33 is a fine example of this. From Jesus Christ to Martin Luther King Jr… many of the wise men had gone against the opinion of the majority. A group of people can often magnify and display their own identities in such a way that it eclipses all other identities. Religion can eclipse ethnic identity, while racism can eclipse class position. In many cases, the majority creates their own identity as per their convenience. In the absence of Freedom of Expression of the minority or the check and balance, the voice of the majority becomes the voice of the party system. And in a Dynasty-centred party, it becomes the voice of an individual, which gives birth to Authoritarianism in an apparent Democratic System. Then, the Ego of majority creates obstacles to the protection of the Rights of the minority. Also, the majority often comes forward to crush the voice of the minority. In case there is no opposition, the majority tries to find an opposition. It is an unending process.
However, the political analysts are optimistic. They have stressed on the Right to Recall, saying that there is no reason to think that such a system shall go on and on. He, who is the mighty winner today, might bite the dust tomorrow. It is only the people in power, who do not seem to remember this.
Boundless Ocean of Politics on Facebook:
Boundless Ocean of Politics on Twitter:
Boundless Ocean of Politics on Linkedin:
Contact us: firstname.lastname@example.org