Dynastic rule and vote-bank politics are phenomenon very much prevalent in the western democracies. Yet political parties there--unlike in the sub-continent--never accuse each other of indulging in such practices. From the Pitts father-son duo in England (both became the Prime Minister) to George Bushes in the United States one can find dozens of such examples in the West yet no eye-brows are raised.

George Bush Junior’s brother Jeb Bush is also very much in politics. There are many political families like Kennedy, Ford, Bush, Clinton (husband-wife team) etc yet their existence is never made a poll issue. Political parties do not attack each other below the belt as we do in the sub-continent.

Similarly minority and ethnic groups are assiduously courted by one political party or the other. For example Jews and Blacks would generally vote for the Democratic Party in the United States. But this does not mean that cent per cent votes of these communities go to any particular party. At times a sizeable number of Jews voted for the Republicans too. It has recently been observed that Republican Party in United States and Conservatives in United Kingdom are promoting Blacks, Jews and other minorities to expand their bases. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are Negroes in US administration while Michael Howard is the first Jew to become the leader of Conservative Party in England recently.

Even in other democracies of Europe different political parties try to attract minority and ethnic groups yet there is no talk of minorities’ appeasement or treating any particular religious group as vote-bank. Sometimes even votes are polled on Protetant-Catholic line. It is generally witnessed that the Labour and Liberal parties of Europe are more open and accommodative than Conservatives.

If this is the situation in advanced democracies of the West why is it that there is so much hullabaloo whenever any political party in India tries to seek vote of a particular community or communities; or when a certain member of a reputed political family takes over the leadership of the party. Democracies, whether it is in the East or West, has its inherent weakness and nobody can deny it.

Every one is aware that George Bush Junior was talent-and experience-wise much inferior to his father when he became the President of the most powerful country of the world. He was an ordinary speech-maker, whose world view was extremely poor. Till recently he failed to distinguish between Slovenia and Slovakia, the two countries of Europe. He was not even aware of the exact location of Afghanistan and had to seek the help of map before ordering the aerial bombardment over it.

In contrast his father served at various important posts, for example ambassador to China, before becoming the President of the country. To much extent Bush Junior owes his present position to his father. Incidentally, he became President only a decade after Bush Senior and at comparatively much younger age notwithstanding the fact that the Republican Party is packed with some extremely talented brains.

In the West political leaders openly appeal to minority or different ethnic groups to vote for them. These groups have their own lobby and raise fund for the party of their choice. But in India the situation is completely different. Ironically the BJP and Communists would till recently make a strange bedfellows. While the Communists were opposed to the very idea of demanding votes in the name of religion the BJP was always against what it used to call minority appeasement. Curiously after accusing the secular parties for the last 57 years the BJP is doing the same today. Both Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his deputy Lal Krishna Advani are leaving no stone unturned to seek Muslim votes. The Communists too have softened their stand on the issue of appealing to the religious groups.

What is this vote-bank politics and why is it that in India many people see this in quite a different way? The problem in the Indian sub-continent is that the vote-bank politics led to the partition of India in 1947 and of Pakistan in 1971. And if Sri Lanka has the fractured polity today it has something to do with the same type of politics. Even though the demographic reality has changed completely in the post-independence India and Muslims are numerically much smaller and weaker minority, yet fear continues to grip the mind of the ultra-rightist forces. They believe that the country may undergo another partition if Muslims en bloc vote for any particular party.

What they fail to realize is that the partition of India was the outcome of communal politics systematically introduced by the British in India. The divide and rule politics of the foreign ruler finally yielded result. In spite of that the division of the country could have been averted had political leaders of different parties behaved more responsibly and avoided personality clashes.

The situation now is totally different and there is no scope whatsoever of country witnessing another division as in 1947. Today if a political party seeks the vote of any minority or promises to do something for it such assurances and announcements are not going to affect the secular fabrics of the country as it is generally made out by Sangh Parivar.

The irony is that we are the first to cite the western examples. But many of us are very selective in it. They highlight only those instances which suit them. They ignore the prevailing dynastic rule and appeal to religious groups on election eve in the West. But can any one party claim that it is not promoting family rule in politics. Of all the parties it is the BJP which has given maximum number of seats to the close relatives of its leaders. Dynastic rule can not only be confined to one family. The existence of family rule in a democracy--East or West--may certainly be not a healthy sign, but one can not be selective in criticism.

While eulogizing the western democracy one can not overlook serious defects in it. Glamorous personalities even with little experience have become prominent political hero even in the United States. If N T Rama Rao and M G Ramachandran, fresh from the world of reel life, stormed into Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu politics in 1970s and 1980s respectively Arnold Schwarzenegger, a silver screen idol, in no time, rose to become the governor of California in election held last year. President Ronald Reagan was also a former movie star. Personality cult, to some extent, do matter even in the western democracies.

Similarly many of the American and European Presidents, Prime Ministers and senior ministers are former army, air force or naval official. The example of Franklin D Roosevelt is very much evident. He was the architect of the Allies victory in Europe, especially the re-capture of France from German in August 1944. In 1950s he went on to become the President. Winston Churchill was also a reputed admiral at the time of World War-I. Colin Powell during the First Gulf War of 1991 was holding the top most post in the US army. Besides, military officials are often appointed in several civilian jobs. Thus former soldiers is always admired in the western society.

In Israel, also a democracy, almost all the Prime Ministers and Presidents are ex-armymen. Retired army, air force and naval officials hold all the crucial civil posts in that country. Yet no one talk of militarization of the society or politics either in Israel or western democracy.

In the sub-continent we tend to be more democratic than the West. The presence of ex-army officials in politics would be considered as undemocratic or an unhealthy trend in India. Even in Pakistan, where army have intervened several times, the appointment of retired army generals, even by the democratically elected government, often evokes sharp criticism in media. Analysts would write that these army officials are fit only for the purpose of battlefield.

But then there is a difference. While secretary of state would not be addressed as General (Retired) Colin Powell or Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as General (Retired) Sharon --but simply Mr Powell and Mr Sharon--in Pakistan the home minister under democratically elected Benazir government was always called General (Retired) Nasrullah Khan Babar. And Tehrik-e-Istiqlal leader Asghar Khan was always known as Air Marshal (Retired) Asghar Khan till he breath his last, though he left his air force job some three decades back. The society here is yet to become matured.

Comment...