What was written on walls is now set to happen. The grand old party of India has, once again, decided to go for a perceived shortcut to its political survival by choosing to anoint its current vice-president as president of the party.

In observance of the Election Commission’s directive, Congress has finally announced the schedule of its internal elections. By the first week next month the current party president’s son would be officially elected as president, which will almost certainly go unopposed.

Sadly, in any debate about democracy and dynasty, a sheer partisan approach often pushes logic to the backseat. Defenders of dynasty pull out examples of PV Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesari as party chiefs beyond the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. But these exceptions only prove the rule. They also argue that in several other parties including BJP, sons and daughters are given election tickets. Those who argue thus wantonly forget that unlike in dynastic parties, in BJP and a few other parties, party leadership is not reserved for a particular family only.

We have examples of sons and daughters of several national leaders of BJP who are miles away from politics and never ever were they considered for top jobs in the party. Political parties are a crucial democratic institution and their survival, strength as well as efficacy should be at the core of this debate.

To begin with, let’s realise the magnitude of family-driven parties in India today. Of the 50 odd political parties who have some representation in Parliament or state legislatures, at least 30 are family-driven. At least one of the major competing political parties in almost every state is a family-driven party. With no lofty ideals and almost zero policy positions, storm troopers and cheer leaders masquerade as cadres in such parties.

Unable to find trustworthy lieutenants in such crowds, supreme leaders of such parties become acutely insecure from within. Consequently, they start heavily depending upon their own progeny only, regardless of the latter’s inclination, ability or both.

Such family driven parties are bound to have inherent limitations. No senior leader can ever think of occupying the supreme position. Their internal democracy quotient is always very low. Moreover, the generation next of political dynasties just can’t command the same amount of affectionate respect from the people.

To expect today’s voters to blindly follow a family, recalling the contribution of its previous generation, is either sheer naivete or an insult to the thinking ability of voters. Family parties make concepts like social justice and inclusive politics stand on their heads.

Grave damage is done to the idea of collective responsibility, both in letter and spirit. With no serious party building efforts, family parties wantonly reduce themselves to election winning machines. Additionally, the threat of family feuds leading to disintegration of the party always looms large. Voters are witness to parties splitting simply because Gen-next siblings refuse to accommodate each other.

Sycophants are in all parties, but they grow more rapidly under the family-party banyan tree. This demoralises leaders at the grassroots. From GK Moopanar to ND Tiwari, Sharad Pawar to Mamata Banerjee, most leaders deserted Congress mainly after realising that the first family could be made to listen more effectively from outside Congress.

Grave damage is always done to policy and governance issues by family parties. The last UPA government had to backtrack on a bill simply because a leader-in-making publicly assailed it and tore its copies. At times the entire governance machinery is seen trying to cater to a few hobby horses of dynasty members.

In several states, NGOs with wife as chairman and husband as treasurer are ineligible for government grants. Ironically, political leaders in governments making such rules are promoting family-driven political enterprises.

Bereft of any distinct ideological framework or unique policy view, these dynasty-driven parties are bringing disrepute to political parties as democratic institutions. With a majority of such family-driven parties looking alike, talking alike and behaving alike, the element of choice – central to the very idea of democracy – is negated. Almost two decades back, a lead article in The Economist had described political parties as empty vessels. With dynasty as their base, family-driven parties in India are sadly making these vessels bottomless as well.