Origins of a New Class: One need not be a Kautilya or a Marxist to understand that in all human societies, there has always been a class of active members of the community that dominated the other members and enjoyed some privileges, prerogatives and advantages because of their power and wealth. From priestly elites to monarchs, aristocrats and merchants, different classes have directed the affairs of state. The governance activities of the state are called ― politica‖ by the Greeks and the term politician later came to describe those who are engaged in manipulating power.In course of time, politics turned into a profession rather than a civic duty with the evolution of representative democracy.
Thinkers such as Gaetano Mosca and Max Weber argued that modern democracies inevitably produced a distinct political class, which, through parties, resources, and cadres, maintained power over the rest of society. The costs of campaigning, reliance on lobbying, and party structures entrenched this class as a self-replicating elite. In Western democracies, the politicians hungry of exercising power over others replaced the princes and feudal lords in democratic regimes. As single representatives of divergent people, they would not have become what they are today, but for their political clubs in the beginning, as it happened in England and France. They became a class, a dominant class among all other classes and groups in society, thereby tightly institutionalising politics above all things. Possessing the resources, networks, and specialised techniques of manipulation of mass psychology, they outshine all other leaders in society. Over time, the costs of electoral campaigns and the influence of lobbying further entrenched this class as self-replicating class.
From the 16th century, it formed the nucleus of the middle classes. In modern societies after the two world wars, the middle classes formed the dominant but diffused class. Since the 19th century, though Marxist thinking identified or singled out the proletariat class to be the dominant class, most of the ideologues were from the middle class with a handful of leaders from the proletariat class. Thus, in 1957, Milovan Djilas from the Yugoslavia discovered that the Communist Party created a new class of privileged party-bureaucracy, apparatchiks who enjoyed power and material benefits over other from their positions in the party. Most of the political regimes established by the Communist ideology wanted in principle to make the party to be the dominant class that should shape the future of any society.
In India, the political class took shape during the colonial period. Gandhi developed the Congress into a mass movement through non-cooperation, civil disobedience, and constructive programmes, bringing peasants, workers, women, and students of all regions into a national movement. Yet alongside Gandhian mobilisation, elections under the Government of India Act of 1935 encouraged young leaders to engage with parliamentary politics with factions of socialists, Hindu nationalists, communists, reflecting the ideological diversity in Congress. As the tribe of politicians started flourishing, in course of time, the tribe of freedom fighters dwindled. Gandhi obviously disagreed and withdrew from political power struggles, devoting himself to rural uplift and communal harmony until his assassination in 1948.
After independence, India‘s democratic expansion and competitive politics nurtured a professional class of politicians, often drawn from influential families, caste elites, or activists. Dynasties, patronage networks, and caste mobilisation helped entrench politics as a profession. Though the Constitution originally never envisaged or assigned any role to the political parties, even though they already existed at that time; in reality, they dominated and monopolised the representation process laid out by the Constitution. Parties became gatekeepers, nominating candidates and parachuting candidates into elections.
Power Over People, Not Power for People:
Though democracy in principle is meant to empower citizens and to eliminate the distinction between the rulers and ruled, in practice, it had to start with empowering the representatives. The representatives in turn have to empower the citizens. But, this is not happening in India. Self empowerment is visible as political families, dominant castes and majority groups retain the political capital in their hands and pass on to their kith and kin. This class is not competing to serve but to dominate. The obsession is not for justice or welfare but for capturing power; power guarantees wealth, and wealth guarantees more power. In the West, access to political office is heavily mediated by campaign finance. Wealthy donors and corporate lobbies exert disproportionate influence, narrowing the responsiveness of the candidates. In the United States, for instance, the costs of running for Congress or the presidency are so prohibitive that only those with elite connections or significant financial backing can realistically compete and win. Similarly, in European parliamentary democracies, party hierarchies favor insiders who spend years to climb the political hierarchy ladder, often far removed from the common people and from grass root issues.
Professionalization of Politics: Politics in India, as elsewhere in many developing countries, has become a closed profession. Political parties sustain this class, controlling candidate selection and their access to power. Many parties are dynastic (e.g., INC, DMK, SP, RJD), treating leadership as hereditary property. Families such as the Nehru-Gandhis at the national level or regional dynasties like the Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh, the Thackerays in Maharashtra and the Reddys and the Velamas in Telangana, the Kammas and the Kapus in Andhra Pradesh highlight how political capital is frequently inherited and invested for political gains. Welfare schemes and subsidies, though beneficial in addressing poverty, are often implemented in ways that reinforce dependencymentality rather than fostering self-reliance. Thus, politics became less about partnership with the people and more about consolidating dominance of certain categories of individuals, castes and parties.
Even welfare schemes, while important, are often delivered in a way that boosts the image of political leaders instead of strengthening citizen self-reliance. There is an expansion of this class with those new comers who are rejected or not able to enjoy or cope up with their studies and their professions and, who, on the other hand, find satisfaction, feel better in the society seeking recognition, power and money. Further, these compensations serve as incentives to stimulate their hidden talents of manipulation, oratory, persuasive skills, and willingness to do or accept wrong things with cynical justification for political expediency. Some kind of lurking guilt, humiliation, fear and anxiety remain in their minds, no doubt, and these complexes damage their mental health, serenity, good sleep and general health. But, on the other hand, the passion to compete to win and to gain, and not to lose power and positions prolong their active life and even longevity. Politicians form a distinct stratum with their own privileges, prerogatives, advantages and protocols; defend collective benefits such as high salaries, pensions, and control over appointments.
Citizens retain the formal right to vote, not to choose, and give their consent to those candidates who are nominated or parachuted by the parties. Political office carries symbolic prestige, as they see that no other leader in economic, academic, social and cultural fields gets the limelight of the entire society. Example; they get the darshan of any God and the attention of the priest in a temple first before all other devotees.
In Marxian terms, politicians now function as a dominant class which refers not just to persons in positions of authority, but to the group that controls the agents and means of production and thereby shapes culture, law, and political power in ways that maintains their prominence. Instead of nurturing deliberative democracy, parties encourage clientelism, using voters as vote-banks rather than engaging citizens as autonomous actors. Internal democracy is rare; internal cliques and groups monopolise decision-making within. They become intolerant to public criticism, oppressive and authoritarian. This is the role that the Communist party of China is playing in China. Instead of focusing on long-term social welfare, the political class prioritises its survival.
Freebies, populism, and short-term schemes overshadow structural reforms in healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Political mobilisation increasingly revolves around mass media, nationalism, and control of coercive institutions. The obsession with power sustains a vicious cycle: power yields wealth, which reinforces power. Citizens become pawns to be bribed, divided, or manipulated. This corrodes trust in human beings and normalises corruption. Politics becomes an occupation for personal enrichment rather than public service, unlike earlier generations of leaders who sacrificed careers for public causes. The vast political class drains resources and talent of the youth that could serve science, business, or art. Generations of young Indians are growing up believing that success lies not in hard work or innovation but in joining the political machinery. Instead of dreaming of science, art, or enterprise, too many dream only of a political post. They are, except some rare leaders, are, in general, not experts in governance, as they come for short periods and share ministerial portfolios based on their political backing. Consequently, as some modern thinkers like Nicos Poulantzas argued, the state functions with a lot of relative autonomy exercised by the bureaucracy. The present diarchy of political executives and administration is only apparent and the real governance is in the hands of the bureaucracy and the diplomats.
Is Such a Vast Political Class Necessary? India today has around 30 lakh elected representatives across panchayats, municipalities, assemblies, and Parliament. Including aspirants, party workers, and dependents, over one crore Indians rely on politics for livelihood. Parties claim millions of militant members, raising the question, is such a vast political class necessary for a humane, productive society? A farmer grows food. A teacher builds knowledge. An engineer creates infrastructure. But what does a politician produce ? Unlike teachers, doctors, drivers, farmers, engineers or artistes, the politicians often contribute little measurable economic value, without mentioning the social disharmony they create. All citizens, including those who are in politics, should be involved in socially useful productivity, innovation for 'ease of doing business' with the Administration thereby contributing to the 'ease of living' to the common people, in short. Their income is taxpayer-funded, supplemented by informal and even illegitimate income and influence-peddling. The opportunity cost is high: one crore people diverted into political activity means less human capital for productive sectors.
How to Disempower the Dominant Political Class? Prospects of Change: The political parties expansion and domination has been distorting democracy, draining resources, and de-stabilising and weakening social institutions. While some form of political leadership might be inevitable for a long time to come, but its current scale and professionalisation are unsustainable. Despite its entrenchment, the political class is losing ground in legitimacy, credibility and popularity, worldwide. In Western democracies, frustrated with career politicians have fueled populist movements and outsider candidates. It started with the student revolt in France in 1968, which challenged the traditional way of governance. Donald Trump, Italy‘s Five Star Movement, and rising far-right parties in some European countries indicate this disillusionment with mainstream parties. Globally, young people play a crucial role. While earlier student uprisings in Latin America and Africa were brutally crushed by police and military forces, today‘s Generation Z, youth and students are endowed and empowered with better means of communication and mobilization with social media. For instance, the Generation Z have been more successful around India in Srilanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Similar uprising is going on in Peru, Madagascar and Thailand. India mirrors this trend but it is still diffused; not yet visible and evident, as it is a large country with pluralist societies. It was possible for Gandhi, as it was possible for Mao Zedong in China.
The anti-corruption movement of the 2010s and before the emergence of the Aam Aadmi Party reflected people's anger at dynastic, caste and patronage-driven politics. Social media amplified scrutiny, exposing corruption and challenging elite narratives. Though these developments do not spell the end of the political class, they signal a pressing demand for transformation of governance. While the political class may not, altogether disappear, its unchecked dominance is likely to erode, giving way to a more contested, transparent, and participatory democracy. We have to act more democratically to build a more Humane and pacific society: Technology and participatory governance can expand citizen voices without enlarging the pool of career politicians.
Digital Direct Participatory Democracy: Using technology for direct citizen involvement at all levels of governance, instead of leaving matters to the representatives. The option of voting digitally with the help of one‘s own telephone is one of them. A healthier model of democracy would not have to rely on permanent political careers for millions. Instead, short-term, rotational representation combined with citizen participation and digital governance could enhance democracy. Everybody should represent others for short terms and turns, while retaining their jobs and professions. That is the trend that is developing in most of the liberal democracies in Europe. Outside the parties, actors, activists, and independent candidates have to increasingly enter the fray of elections.
Democratic Decentralization by empowering local institutions. Creating a 4th –tier of governance at the level of the Ward Committees composed of the local civil society associations of youth, women and senior citizens and RWAs. Of course, to start with in local body elections, there should be no role for the political parties. Transparency mechanisms: RTI, Citizens Charters, politicaly-free media, and social media scrutiny to hold the authorities. Universal social security: preventing youth from entering politics out of economic desperation. Independent candidates: Encourage voters to vote to the locally known independent candidates only, instead of partynominees. Supporting civil society activism for development and peace and strengthening NGOs, RWAs, and grassroots bodies.
A More Pacific State: Modern states in the hands of the politicians, career-diplomats and military establishments all over world are exaggerating the passions of nationalism and the glory of their party to become more authoritarian over the citizens. They claim absolute sovereignty internationally over their people within their boundaries and do not accept any UN intervention to protect the people from their dictatorship, if need be. Some states have built nuclear bombs and can destroy entire mankind by any hasty decision or even by accident. Internally, the political culture in the society makes people to divide themselves into militants of a leader and a party and oppose, denigrate, condemn what all others propose and act. Distrust of others, once they are not within the party, or within the group of the party is vitiating and poisoning human relations. There is no human solidarity, love and affection for the other and consequently there is no social harmony, which is the main purpose for we have come together to from a human society.
Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
0 Comments