As someone who is totally opposed to dynastic democracy, it disappointed me that Anna Hazareâ€™s crusaders against corruption did not identify this as a major source. They raged against criminals in Parliament and called politicians thieves and traitors but not once did Anna or his team notice that hereditary MPs exist for reasons of corruption. When a parliamentary constituency becomes an inheritance, it becomes a private estate whose purpose is to benefit the family who owns it. And, the reason why most of our political parties have been turned into private property is because politics is the easiest way to make money in India. Nobody knows this better than politicians. My opposition to Annaâ€™s movement was because I believe it misled apolitical middle class Indians into believing that all it needs is a new law and a vast new bureaucracy to defeat corruption. The reason why so many politicians of varying hue have rallied behind Anna is because they know that the proposed Lokpal law will make no real difference. It will not affect even slightly the core of political corruption which is the practice of handing parliamentary constituencies and political parties down in the family. Anyone with minimum political understanding should be able to see that this practice arose out of a desire to protect the family business and not out of a desire for public service. It must be stopped if India is to ever grow into a mature democracy. Ads by Google Dynastic democracy has harmed India incalculably. Not just because it is a major source of corruption but because it has created a younger generation of political leaders who are not leaders at all. Rahul Gandhi provided an excellent example of this during the Anna hunger strike. This should have been his moment to lead. The Congress Party was in disgrace after one of its spokesmen made an idiot of himself and the government was rudderless and confused. It was a moment for leadership and this should have come from the man who seeks one day to be our prime minister. He returned on the day that the crucial mistake of throwing Anna Hazare in Tihar Jail was made. If the Gandhi heir had been a real leader, he would have publicly disapproved of this foolish move and then gone straight to Tihar to persuade Anna to desist from his fast. The situation may have been instantly defused. He failed to do this but the Congress Party is so dependent on the Dynasty in times of crisis that Rahul Gandhi was pushed forward as a special speaker on the Lokpal debate in the Lok Sabha. This was his second chance to lead. Instead, he read out a speech so filled with banalities it could have been written by a political science professor. Whispers of â€˜Pappu fail ho gaya,â€™ filtered out of the chambers of Parliament afterwards but the truth is that Rahul could not have done better. Political leaders of calibre come always from real political movements and not from the wombs of women who marry political leaders. But, in India we appear not to have worked this out. So we have political heirs in charge of nearly all our political parties and even a formerly vociferous opponent of dynastic democracy like the BJP now promotes political heirs all the way down its ranks. Those who defend dynastic democracy argue that if heirs were unpopular, they would not win elections. It is a fallacious argument because the little princes and princesses that find their way into the Lok Sabha usually contest from a constituency that has been carefully nurtured by Mummy or Daddy. Luckily, the times seem now to be changing if we are to go by what happened to the Lalu and Karunanidhi dynasties in Bihar and Tamil Nadu. There are still three years to the next general election and our political parties would do well to read the writing on the wall and initiate inner party elections so that people with a real sense of public service get tickets next time. There are millions of Indians eminently qualified for public life who never get a chance because of the feudal practices of our political parties. Now that we have seen Indiaâ€™s most famous heir fail to lead in a time of crisis, can we hope that at least our major political parties start recognising that they must start changing their ways before it is too late. The disenchantment with our elected representatives runs deep. Dynastic democracy has so derailed democratic processes that we have been ruled by an unelected prime minister since 2004. He was appointed by a lady whose own entry into public life was based wholly on marrying into the right dynasty. In recent weeks, it became blindingly clear that what India needed most was a real prime minister. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/time-for-dynastic-democracy-to-die/841301/0 What's your say ?