When merit becomes privilege: The hidden elitism in anti-dynasty politics

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak* 

On October 31, 2025, erudite scholar and seasoned observer of international diplomacy and Indian politics, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, wrote an opinion piece titled “Indian Politics Are a Family Business” for Project Syndicate. Dr. Tharoor’s diagnosis is accurate: dynastic politics undermines democracy, weakens governance, and limits the state’s capacity to deliver on the welfare promises of electoral politics. It reduces the transformative potential of democracy to a mere reproduction of power, creating an illusion of participation where bloodlines determine authority, influence, and privilege. 

Such politics obstructs the deepening of democracy, decentralisation of power, and the empowerment of egalitarian citizenship in a constitutional democracy like India. The idea of birthrights in politics and the perpetuation of family legacies corrode the democratic foundation, creating fertile ground for autocratic family-led politics across levels—from the grassroots to the national stage.

Dr. Tharoor argues for replacing dynastic politics with meritocracy, proposing reforms such as term limits, internal party democracy, and civic education to encourage voters to choose leaders based on merit. However, what constitutes “merit” in democratic politics? Are its markers skills, education, ideology, class, caste, gender, or property? Dr. Tharoor neither defines the term nor explores its implications. While many contemporary thinkers advocate meritocracy as a corrective to dynastic politics, the idea itself remains deeply problematic.

In practice, meritocratic politics often elevates technocrats and consultants detached from the lived realities of ordinary citizens. Like dynastic politics, it fosters elitism by privileging access, education, and social capital. The individualistic notion of merit gives rise to careerist politics—an approach that complements dynastic power and strengthens capitalism’s autocratic tendencies within electoral systems. Historical examples—from the Qin and Han dynasties in China to the Rashidun Caliphate in the Arab world and the Ashanti kings in Africa—show how “meritocracy” served as a mechanism of hegemonic control in undemocratic and feudal empires. Similarly, British colonial rule in India rested on a caste-based, property-driven system that glorified bureaucratic “merit.” Across history, meritocracy has often functioned as a justification for hierarchy rather than an instrument of equality.

The philosophical roots of meritocracy can be traced to Plato and Aristotle. Plato divided citizens into rulers, soldiers, and producers based on their natural abilities. Aristotle, in The Politics, argued that those with superior abilities should enjoy better opportunities—an idea that easily translates into social elitism. In India, the caste system mirrors such hierarchical thinking, making meritocracy susceptible to reinforcing Brahminical and feudal structures. Instead of dismantling privilege, a meritocratic order risks replacing one form of aristocracy—the dynastic—with another—the aristocracy of talent and education.

Religious traditions across the world, from Confucianism to Hinduism, have sanctified merit through moral and spiritual hierarchies, rewarding devotion and obedience to authority. Modern capitalist democracies replicate this by promoting meritocracy as fair competition, while in reality, market-driven electoral politics privileges the wealthy and well-connected. The enormous cost of elections ensures that only the affluent can participate meaningfully, thus concentrating power among elites.

Right-wing, liberal, and centrist thinkers alike—from John Stuart Mill to Daniel Bell—have defended meritocracy as a fair and efficient system. Yet, in practice, it individualises mobility while entrenching structural inequalities. The myth of merit conceals the inherited advantages of caste, class, and gender. Education and professional qualifications, often considered hallmarks of merit, do not automatically produce transformative or egalitarian politics. Nations with highly educated politicians—such as Ukraine, South Korea, and the United States—continue to witness oligarchic dominance and reactionary politics. Conversely, countries where politicians have modest educational backgrounds are not necessarily more democratic or progressive. There is no empirical evidence linking educational merit with democratic deepening or social justice.

Merit, therefore, often reflects privilege rather than ability. It reproduces inequality by rewarding those already advantaged by wealth, social networks, or cultural capital. A political system built on such a conception of merit protects existing hierarchies, hollowing out democracy from within. Dr. Tharoor’s call for meritocracy thus represents a case of “right diagnosis, wrong prescription.”

What India needs is a redefinition of political merit. True merit in politics should rest on commitment to the working people, willingness to sacrifice for the collective good, and leadership grounded in public service rather than personal gain. Such a reimagined meritocracy must be collective, not individualistic—rooted in solidarity, equality, and participatory governance.

A genuinely democratic meritocracy can only emerge through sustained mobilisation of the working people, who are the real custodians of democracy. Their organised movements can forge a system based on collective knowledge, shared prosperity, and decentralised power. In such a democracy, neither dynastic politics nor elitist meritocracy would find space, and power would truly return to where it belongs—with the people.

---

*Academic based in UK. This article is a rejoinder to Dr. Shashi Tharoor’s “Indian Politics Are a Family Business,” published in Project Syndicate on October 31, 2025. Link