India is obsessed with feudal democracy

Seven decades after Independence the fact that Indians still look up to individuals for leadership indicates a serious deficiency in democratic praxis. Actor, or rather superstar Rajinikanth’s entry into politics is being viewed as a development that has the potential of convulsing Tamil Nadu’s politics. Many expect him to fill the power vacuum created by the death of former chief minister J Jayalalithaa.

As in several other States, Tamil Nadu is beset with a range of problems ranging from poverty, corruption and illiteracy to substandard administration. To expect an individual, however talented, to arrive with a magic broom and sweep the State of all its ills is an over-reach by any standard. But that is how Rajinikanth’s announcement is being received — with loads of hyperbole.

The issue here is not Rajinikanth. The actor is like any other individual — with positives and negatives, a world view and the drive to achieve something. It is the response among large sections of people, bordering on the euphoric, that needs closer scrutiny.

The clamour for individuals to cure the country of its various ills implies that the various institutions representing the democratic apparatus have failed in meeting popular aspirations. The concept of collective leadership has given way to the phenomenon of individual leaders. Tamil Nadu is a classic example.

The Dravidian movement which empowered the so-called backward castes and successfully erased centuries-old discrimination and inequality lost its moorings once its initial goals were achieved. Not only did it lose its reformist drive, it degenerated into personality-driven politics. Former actor MG Ramachandran, followed by his colleague J Jayalalithaa, towered above the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the party they represented. The party organisation became an appendage to the leader. Similarly M Karunanidhi, despite the DMK having deeper roots and a more robust party structure.

The upshot was that once MGR died he was replaced by Jayalalithaa after a bitter power struggle. As for the ageing Karunanidhi, his progeny are already in a subterranean fight for the spoils of power. Jayalalithaa’s absence has created a void that newer players are vying to fill, including superstar Rajinikanth and his rival Kamal Haasan.

Tamil Nadu’s problem is but the extension of a larger Indian problem — that of a feudal mindset. Though India has been a democracy for so long, people still do not seem to have got out of an age-old monarchical mindset. The belief in traditional hierarchical layers, an unquestioned trust of authority and the internalising of fatalism have formed a unique mix that is in conflict with a truly democratic outlook.

Poverty, corruption, etc are deeper ills, and one key enabler is the weakening of democratic institutions. Instead of looking at ways to strengthen these institutions, people appear to be looking at shortcuts — clamouring for actors and glib individualistic politicians to deliver them from misery.

History is replete with failures of individual leaders in administration. The issue is accountability. There are numerous instances where individuals have managed to subvert institutions to serve their personal needs at the expense of people who voted them to power.

In contrast, well-entrenched democracies such as the UK and others in Europe exhibit strong institutional governance. Prime ministers in the UK come and go. But none is hero-worshipped. Once out of office they are quickly relegated to live the lives of common people. Ironically, among India’s chatterati, stories go round and round extolling this fact — forgetting that if select individuals rule the roost here and are above the law, the very people circulating these stories on social media are in some ways responsible. Corruption does exist in the developed democracies, but not in the rampant and disdainful manner as one sees in India.

In the US, President Donald Trump has rattled the establishment. What makes Trump unique is that he is riding roughshod over institutional decision-making, antagonising powerful democratic institutions including the media and even his own Republican party. He functions like an individual — similar to the kind of leaders one is used to seeing in India.

The result is that an individual is challenging the robustness of American democratic institutions. By the time Trump leaves office one of them will be nursing a bloody nose. There will be useful lessons in this for liberal democracies.

Back home, almost no political party can boast of a strong organisational structure. They have turned into bodies that solely entirely cater to the whims of the leader. Post-Independence, the first individual-leader who diluted her party organisation was Indira Gandhi. The Congress was reduced to a vestige of its former self and has suffered since then, struggling to keep afloat and take on contemporary political challenges.

Similar is the case with the BJP: many senior politicians have been sidelined and Prime Minster Narendra Modi rules the roost, free from the dictates of the party. The effect of this is bound to be felt by the party in the years to come — similar to what the Congress faces now.

So is the fate of the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu which has been unable to recover from the death of Jayalalithaa. The party was subsumed by an individual and now there seems no hope for revival. The DMK is on the verge of a similar catastrophe unless the leadership does something different.

Amidst this, a new entrant is planning to repeat history. Rajinikanth is even more brazen. He has no political party, no structure and no publicised agenda. Yet, he plans to leverage his charisma on celluloid to win votes and rule the State.

The party and all other democratic “inconveniences” that go with governance come a distance next. As philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.”

The writer is an independent journalist based in Bengaluru

COMMENT NOW