A recent report underscores the prominence of dynastic connections in Indian politics despite ongoing debates surrounding nepotism. The findings reveal that approximately 21% of the nation’s sitting Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), and Members of Legislative Councils (MLCs) come from dynastic backgrounds.
According to a report released by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 32% of sitting MPs, MLAs, and MLCs affiliated with the Congress party are dynasts, followed by 22% from regional parties and 17% from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The analysis encompassed 5,203 elected representatives, with 1,106 identified as having familial political ties. The report highlights that dynastic representation is most pronounced in the Lok Sabha (31%) compared to state assemblies (20%).
Within the realm of national parties, ADR scrutinized 3,214 sitting MPs, MLAs, and MLCs, of which 20% were from political families. In contrast, smaller parties such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) exhibited significantly reduced dynastic influence, with only 8% of representatives coming from dynastic backgrounds.
Political economist Arun Kumar notes, “India is a feudal country,” stating that both the political elite and the public view the concentration of power within families as acceptable. He cites the financial barriers of elections as another factor supporting dynastic candidates, as families often invest in their own political legacies.
Regional parties generally reflect the trends observed with national parties. The ADR report indicates that among 1,808 scrutinized sitting MPs, MLAs, and MLCs from these parties, 22% belong to dynastic lineages. For instance, parties like the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) show impressive dynastic representation at 42% and 38%, respectively. Conversely, parties such as the All India Trinamool Congress and AIADMK have notably lower rates at 10% and 4%.
The report also highlights an intriguing aspect concerning female representation: nearly 47% of the 539 women MPs, MLAs, and MLCs analyzed come from political families, a figure significantly higher than their male counterparts at 18%. This trend varies across states; for example, in Jharkhand, 73% of women in politics stem from dynastic backgrounds. While dynasticism may facilitate entry for women, it simultaneously restricts opportunities for first-generation female politicians.
The data indicates that dynastic representation is more substantial at the national level, suggesting established political families dominate in securing visibility and prestige, whereas state politics may offer greater opportunities for newcomers. The ADR report posits that dynastic politics is not restricted to simple seat inheritance but represents a structural feature across various demographics.
The prevalence of dynasticism stems from India’s familial traditions that lend credibility to such candidates in the eyes of voters. Political parties frequently incentivize dynastic contenders during candidate selection, often without oversight.
Manisha Priyam, a political analyst, provides a counterpoint, arguing that while over 20% of representatives are dynasts, 80% are not. She emphasizes the complexities within regional party leadership, suggesting that figures like Akhilesh Yadav and Stalin have had to strive for their positions contrary to perceptions of entitlement.
The ADR, a non-profit focused on electoral reforms for over 25 years, has become a pivotal source for data on politicians’ backgrounds, including their financial standings and criminal histories, serving as an informant on the implications of dynastic politics in India.
