Document

GS-II Indian Polity

Looking Beyond ‘Dynasts’: The Political Parachutist, a Phenomenon across Parties

The phenomenon of political dynasts in India often attracts public scrutiny, while the rise of political parachutists (individuals entering powerful political roles without grassroots experience) remains largely overlooked.

About Parachute Politicians & Dynasts

Parachute politicians are individuals with little or no prior local association who are strategically brought in by a central party leadership to contest elections in a specific constituency, often a "safe seat," irrespective of the wishes or input of the local party branch. Dynasts (or dynastic politicians) are members of a political family in which multiple members, often across generations, hold or have held elected positions or significant party roles, effectively turning politics into a family business.

Parachute Politicians

Definition: These politicians "drop in" to a constituency, much like a paratrooper, without having worked their way up through local ranks or having established a grassroots connection with the local electorate.
Methodology: The central party leadership typically selects them based on their national name recognition (e.g., celebrities, former high-ranking civil servants, or even just well-known party figures) to maximize the party's electoral prospects in that area.
Criticism: This practice often generates resentment among local party members who have dedicated years to grassroots work. Critics argue it undermines internal party democracy, as local preferences are bypassed, and the candidate may not fully understand or empathize with local issues.
Example: Smriti Irani, after losing her initial election in Amethi, worked to build a local connection and officially registered as a voter there, attempting to shed the "parachute politician" label often applied to candidates who abandon a constituency after a loss.

Dynasts

Definition: These individuals inherit their political careers through family connections (parents, siblings, spouse, etc.) rather than through an open, merit-based process.
Methodology: Political parties often favor dynastic candidates due to their inherited name recognition, existing networks, and access to significant financial resources, which are seen as "winnability" factors in expensive elections.
Criticism: Dynastic politics are often criticized for creating an unelected, birth-based ruling class, limiting equal political opportunity for outsiders, and potentially leading to less qualified leaders at the helm. It is seen as a symptom of a lack of internal democracy within political parties.
Examples: The Nehru-Gandhi family in India is a prominent example of a long-standing political dynasty. Dynastic tendencies exist across all parties and regions in India, with some state-level parties being largely family-run.

Key Differences

Feature	Parachute Politicians	Dynasts
Origin	Imposed by central party leadership.	Emerge from an established political family.
Local Ties	Often have no prior local association.	Inherit existing family networks and support bases.
Basis of Entry	Name recognition/status often from outside the specific constituency.	Family lineage and inherited political capital.
Resentment	Directed at the imposition by central leadership.	Directed at the principle of inherited power and privilege.

Rise of New Development

Cabinet Rank to Senior Staff:An interesting development linked to this trend is granting cabinet rank to some senior officials who do not hold elected positions but serve in senior staff roles, reflecting a new practice of recognizing administrative expertise at the political executive level.
For instance, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval was elevated to cabinet rank recently, highlighting the growing importance of such appointments at higher political ranks.

Reason Parties and Voters Prefer political parachutist

The political parachutist phenomenon is seen across almost all political parties and involves individuals inducted into political office without prior local political experience or a political family background. Parties and voters prefer political parachutists for several reasons:

Parties view parachutists, often professionals, civil servants, or businesspersons, as individuals with integrity and professionalism who may cleanse politics and governance. They are seen as a way of projecting a modern, competent image to the public and increasing electoral prospects.
For parties, parachutists can be strategic assets brought in to contest "safe seats" or constituencies where the party seeks electoral gain or visibility, especially if these candidates have public recognition or expertise.
Voters, particularly in middle classes, often prefer parachutists over dynasts (political family heirs) because they are perceived as less dishonest and less entrenched in nepotism.
However, parachutists often lack direct political connection and long grassroots engagement, which are important for genuine political leadership and public trust.
From a party management perspective, parachuting candidates may help maximize the party vote or compensate for electoral challenges, acting as a strategic electoral tactic.
On the downside, parachutists may generate resentment within parties, as they are not considered insiders or genuine party members and may lack a local support base.

Hence, the phenomenon reflects a balance between parties' need for electoral pragmatism and voters' desire for integrity and competence beyond traditional political dynasties.

Challenges with Parachute Politicians

"Parachute politicians" (or "carpetbaggers" in the U.S.) are candidates who lack local connections to the area they are running to represent and are often imposed by central party leadership. The challenges they face stem primarily from voter resentment, local party hostility, a lack of local knowledge, and difficulties in building trust and a personal vote.

Key challenges include:

Voter Distrust and Resentment: Voters generally prefer candidates who are "local" and have pre-existing ties to the community. External candidates are often perceived as opportunistic, merely seeking a safe seat for career advancement rather than a genuine desire to serve the local constituency. This can lead to a significant drop in voter support compared to a local opponent.
Lack of Local Knowledge: Parachute politicians often have little or no understanding of the specific issues, culture, and political will of their constituents. This unfamiliarity can make it difficult for them to address local concerns effectively and can lead to gaffes during campaigning. For example, a local leader commented that a parachuted Boris Johnson would not be comfortable assisting an "old lady who was having problems with her housing benefit" because he lacked local knowledge.
Hostility from Local Party Members: The imposition of a candidate from the central office, bypassing the local nomination process, often generates significant anger and disappointment among local party loyalists and volunteers. This can lead to a fractured local party, a lack of grassroots support, and a reduced volunteer base, all of which are crucial for a successful campaign.
Difficulty Building a Personal Vote: Locally nominated candidates can cultivate a personal vote over time through consistent constituency service and engagement. Parachute candidates do not have this history, making it harder for them to build a strong personal reputation that transcends party lines.
Perception of Arrogance: The act of being parachuted in can be seen as "arrogant in the extreme" and a sign that the central party has little regard for the local hierarchy and its members' wishes.
Focus on High-Profile vs. Local Issues: Studies suggest that parachuted candidates, once elected, are more likely to focus on high-profile legislative positions and national party lines, while locally nominated candidates tend to prioritize local issues and constituency service. This can exacerbate the perception that the parachuted representative is out of touch with local needs.

In sum, while party leaders may use parachuting to bring in "star" candidates or increase diversity, the practice creates substantial friction and significant electoral hurdles stemming from a fundamental lack of local connection and buy-in from both the local party and the electorate.

Way Forward:

Political parties should encourage genuine grassroots political engagement rather than relying on parachutists with no local connect.
Parachutists, if inducted, should gain political experience through sustained fieldwork and public interaction to build political legitimacy.
Parties need to balance the inclusion of experts (parachutists) with entrenched political leaders to integrate administrative skills while respecting democratic processes.
Enhance transparency and criteria for selection so that parachutists are not mere political trophies but active contributors with accountability.
Promote merit-based political leadership emerging from within party ranks and popular support, encouraging political apprenticeship and leadership development.
Strengthen internal party democracy to resist resentment and factionalism caused by parachute entries.
Encourage parachutists to contest direct elections to establish a direct connection with voters instead of relying on nominated positions like Rajya Sabha.
Shift towards a political culture recognizing both experience in governance and the need for popular legitimacy through electoral politics.

Conclusion:

Political parachutists differ from dynasts in lacking family political lineage but often depend heavily on adoptive political patrons.
While parachutists are seen as professionals bringing expertise and integrity, they generally lack the essential political connect with the electorate acquired through years of grassroots work.
Democratic leadership requires both competence and political legitimacy, which parachutists may struggle to fully gain without field experience.
The proliferation of parachutists is a growing trend across parties, often used for electoral symbolism or comfort in administrative roles.
The political system must reconcile the role of parachutists with the foundational democratic principle of leaders having popular mandate and independent political standing.
Sustainable democracy demands leaders rooted in political experience and connect, ensuring that governance reflects people's aspirations and political realities.
Parachutists can complement but not replace the core political leadership that evolves through active participation in electoral democracy.
The political parachutist phenomenon calls for reforms that emphasize political credibility alongside administrative expertise, ensuring healthy party dynamics and democratic governance.

Download Pdf

Student Login