TRAZADO RETRÓGRADO DE LAS CGR

Defining the Indian political system as “the congress system” Kothari (1964) explains that it was the Congress Party that introduced an organized and functional

democratic government in India and more importantly, for a very long period “Congress was the only party to be trusted” for the job of governance in India. The Congress Party and its prominent leaders were originally the result of the “movement for independence and reform” in India. Due to this historical legacy, before even coming to power, Congress and its leaders had already gained “legitimacy” to govern and had accumulated a huge trust base in the society (Kothari, 1964).

The ‘party system’ in Indian politics is ‘one of the most successful party systems in operation’ and contrary to most western democracies where party system suggests ‘a relationship between the government and party organization’ and where the party organization plays a crucial ‘subsidiary role’, the Indian party system works on consensus within the party and outside (Kohli, 1988; Kothari, 1964).

Prooijen & Lange (2014) explain that political leadership is important for representing a society as well as for decision-making purposes and smooth civic-economic

operation of a society. Further, a society depends on its leaders for its well-being and since, so much power remains with the leaders, the media and the citizens closely monitor and evaluate the leaders in terms of their character, behaviour,

trustworthiness and levels of corruption (Prooijen & Lange, 2014).  

Political leadership in India is comparatively more significant than political institutions because in a political system swaying between majoritarian democracy and

(Mehra & Kueck, 2003). The importance of individual leader’s in Indian political system is evident from the way the political governance changes considerably under the same “institutional arrangements” but different political leaders. For example, centralizing authoritarian governance under Indira Gandhi was a stark contrast to the previous Nehruvian policy (Mehra & Kueck, 2003). It can be supposed that leader charisma has more worth in Indian politics.

A leader can create a huge following, inspire them and even become the role model of the masses through their personal charisma (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This

phenomenon goes further in case of India, where it is common to idolise and worship the leaders (The logical Indian, 2015). Narrating the charismatic personality,

extraordinary success and popularity of Indira Gandhi, Malik and Vajpeyi (1988) argue that politics and culture are interdependent and the actions and personalities of political leaders are shaped and influenced by the environment that surrounds them. In case of India, it can be argued that the political leaders who are able to mould their personalities according to the nature of their current society are trusted, admired and even idolized by their followers. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Indira and even the contemporary ones like Narendra Modi are worshipped like godly figures. For instance, the creation of temples (see Figure 3.1) made in their names is a common phenomenon across India (The Guardian,

Figure 3.1: PM Modi statue in India (Source: telegraph.co.uk, 12/02/2015)

India has had sixteen general elections since independence and out of that the Congress Party (INC), led mostly by the Nehru-Gandhi family lost only six times. They formed government ten times out of sixteen, either in direct majority or in coalition led by the Congress (Meyer & Malcolm, 1993). The leadership of the

country under Congress Party has been passed on in a dynastic manner among the Nehru-Gandhi family members i.e. from father (Nehru) to daughter (Indira Gandhi) to son (Rajiv Gandhi) to now Prime minister in-waiting grandson (Rahul Gandhi) & granddaughter (Priyanka Gandhi), rather than in a democratic manner (Chhibber, 2011). The first Prime Minister of India Jawaher Lal Nehru is often described as the great statesman of his time for his personal charisma and dynamic personality is confirmed by scholars, supporters and opponents alike as somebody who could use his personality in his favour even in situations meant to sabotage his position (Haqqi,

1986; Ghose, 1993; Bendix, 1967). He is also referred as “the last Englishman to rule India” (Kumarasingham, 2009) due to his personality having close resemblance to the colonial English rulers and the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is often criticised for continuing to reap benefits of India’s feudal-colonial mind-set (Roe, 2010; huffpost, 2014). Here leaders were considered to be God-like or a class apart and acted more like rulers rather than democratic leaders (Huffpost, 2014). The heritage of belonging to the Nehru-Gandhi family legacy is still being regularly coined during campaigns by the current successors of the Congress Party when they introduce themselves as grandson or daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi or great grandson of Nehru in their campaign speeches (Kapoor & Kulshrestha, 2012). Interestingly, the surname “Gandhi”, adopted by the successors of Jawahar Lal Nehru i.e. Indira Gandhi onwards has no biological relation with Mahatma Gandhi. Clearly, it is the legacy of the personality or name and fame of leaders like Nehru, Gandhi and Indira that still reap benefits for many of their successors. Likewise, it is the personality politics of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty that the opposing BJP, aimed to break in recent elections by putting forward their candidate Narendra Modi with a contrasting background, view and character (Pocha, 2014). However, just like the Congress Party, the BJP’s election campaign style also centred on its leader, the only difference being, the leadership wasn’t dependent on family legacy.