Image via twitter
13th Time Lucky? Lalu Prasad Yadav’s “Self-Elected” Presidency and the Echoes of Dynasty Politics
The Facts: What Just Happened?
On June 24, 2025, Lalu Prasad Yadav, the 76-year-old patriarch of Bihar’s most prominent political family, filed his own nomination papers for the RJD presidency and was declared elected unopposed.
The RJD’s internal party machinery claimed that no other nominations were filed, and hence the decision was unanimous.
This is not new for Lalu. But doing it for the 13th consecutive term, while being under health watch and largely away from public life, sparks curiosity. Is this a healthy political process? Or the latest installment of dynastic inertia in Indian politics?
Why Does This Matter?
For several reasons:
- It reflects the state of inner-party democracy in one of India’s major regional parties.
- It sets the tone for 2025 Bihar and national elections, where regional satraps like Lalu still hold sway.
- It mirrors a growing trend in Indian politics where political legacies pass from parent to child rather than through party ranks or merit.
More importantly, it asks a hard question that many Indians whisper but few dare shout:
Are Indian political parties truly democratic, or are they feudal family estates in disguise?
The Politics of the Self-Nomination
In theory, political parties in India are democratic entities. But the RJD’s recent episode tells a different tale. By filing and accepting his own nomination, Lalu has effectively bypassed any semblance of electoral competition within his party.
This isn’t an isolated event.
Earlier instances include:
- Sonia Gandhi heading the Indian National Congress for decades despite consistent electoral losses.
- Sharad Pawar’s NCP staying under family control.
- Shiv Sena (before the split) revolving around the Thackeray dynasty.
Lalu’s move, however, is unique in its lack of pretension. It doesn’t even attempt to simulate democracy.
What Does the Constitution Say?
The Representation of the People Act and the Election Commission of India mandate transparency in party operations. But internal party democracy is still loosely monitored.
Most parties file formalities to remain registered political entities but follow opaque nomination processes internally. This legal vacuum has allowed political families to retain unchallenged control, often for decades.
Family First: The Lalu Legacy
Lalu Yadav’s political empire is a textbook case of dynastic politics:
- His wife Rabri Devi served as Chief Minister of Bihar thrice.
- His son Tejashwi Yadav is the current Deputy CM and de facto political heir.
- Daughter Misa Bharti is a Rajya Sabha MP.
Despite his legal troubles—including a conviction in the fodder scam—Lalu remains the face of RJD, if only symbolically. His re-election as party president keeps the crown within the family, even if the throne is now more ornamental than operational.
Is This a Bihar Problem or a National Pattern?
While Bihar gets the spotlight, dynasty politics is a national epidemic:
- Congress: Gandhi family
- Samajwadi Party: Yadav clan
- DMK: Karunanidhi family
- BJD: Patnaik legacy
- TRS: KCR and son KTR
- NCP: Pawar family (until recent cracks)
Even BJP, despite claiming to be anti-dynasty, has promoted children of veteran leaders in various states.
What Are the Risks of Dynasty Politics?
- Merit is sidelined: Aspiring leaders are often demotivated.
- Loyalty trumps vision: Party loyalty to the family becomes more important than ideology or performance.
- Accountability evaporates: Dynastic leaders often act with impunity, protected by inherited clout.
India, the world’s largest democracy, risks becoming a republic of families, not institutions.
Why Doesn’t the Public Rebel?
The answer is complex. In states like Bihar:
- Caste dynamics play a huge role.
- Lalu’s image as a social justice champion still resonates.
- Many voters feel disenfranchised by the national elite and look at regional dynasts as relatable.
Besides, voter memory is short, and development is often secondary to identity and loyalty.
What’s Next for RJD?
With Tejashwi Yadav poised to lead the party in the 2025 Bihar Assembly Elections, Lalu’s latest term seems symbolic, a way to signal continuity.
Yet, the move is not without consequence. It shows that RJD’s inner circle remains a closed loop, and real decision-making power still rests with the patriarch.
The bigger test will be:
Can Tejashwi modernize the party without alienating the old guard—or his own father?
Can Democracy and Dynasty Coexist?
Some argue that dynastic leaders can be democratically chosen, as long as they’re effective. Rahul Gandhi’s defenders say the same. But in cases like Lalu’s self-nomination and unopposed win, the process itself raises alarm bells.
Real democracy thrives on competition, accountability, and fresh ideas. Dynasty thrives on inheritance and consolidation.
Conclusion: A Symbol of Stability or Stagnation?
Lalu Prasad Yadav’s 13th presidential term is more than a number. It is a symbol of Indian politics’ enduring paradox—between the ideals of democracy and the reality of dynastic power.
His “unanimous” re-election—filed, signed, and accepted by himself—is not just irony. It is a mirror held up to the face of every political party in India.
Whether the public accepts this status quo in 2025 will shape the future of democracy in India.