The number of members of this Parliament from political families has already excited comment. Yet arguments against dynastic politics miss the point that there’s nothing inherently wrong with kin-based leadership in a liberal democracy. To the extent that it is problematic, it reflects a deeper malaise in Indian politics; one which is unlikely to be eradicated even if parties were to refrain from nominating relatives of well-known politicians during elections.

There are at least three reasons. The first, voter-centric, explanation for the success of candidates who can be associated with a previous generation of political leaders is that a shared family name provides greater recognition, particularly in contrast with those candidates who are political unknowns. While visible worldwide, these effects are likely to be heightened in democracies where information about political parties is low to begin with and voters will need information shortcuts in making their choices. In the past, political scientists studying voting patterns in India have surmised that caste and religion provide convenient shortcuts for under-informed voters looking for candidates best able to represent their interests. Family affiliation can also act as one means, among others, by which to base voting decisions in the absence of more concrete information about material differences between candidates. Where voters have fond memories of a nominee’s mother, their sympathetic attitude is likely to provide a significant incentive to consider him more seriously. Thus dynastic politics is an indicator of a deeper problem —voter ignorance. If parties picked candidates on considerations other than those of kinship, voters would rely on other shortcuts.

... contd.