Why Stalin is better than Karunanidhi for DMK

The inheritor can lead the party from dynasty to democracy

By naming MK Stalin the deputy chief minister of Tamil Nadu on Friday, his father and chief minister M Karunanidhi has surprised none. It was a promotion long pending, a logical progression towards the ultimate coronation.
Karunanidhi cannot dodge accusations of promoting dynastic politics, but none can dispute that Stalin deserves the rise. After the aborted bid to propel his son MK Muthu into the high-orbit of politics, Karunanidhi’s perseverance with Stalin has yielded ground results.
From campaigning for the 1967 elections as a 14-year-old to remaining in the Dravidian political limelight during the dark days of Emergency, Stalin has enough roots to withstand the winds of anti-dynasty flak. Stalin, now 56, has been a slow learner alright, but he did learn, to be what he is today. Even after becoming the Mayor of Chennai and a legislator, Stalin remained in the shadows of his father, not interacting much with the media.
Assigned the managerial post of the DMK campaign, the 2001 assembly elections was the litmus test for Stalin. And he failed. Not that it affected the chances of his ascension, but the father wanted Stalin to prove his mettle before taking over the mantle. Stalin was made the deputy general secretary in 2003. Probably he started showing results after that. From revitalising party units across the state, even while filling them with his loyal men, to the dazzling show of the DMK in the recent general elections, Stalin can claim much credit and eligibility to fill his father’s shoes.
Karunanidhi’s retirement will no doubt be an emotional episode in the Dravidian mega serial, but a dispassionate, clinical analysis shows that Stalin would make a better leader for the party. Here is how: Right now, Karunanidhi is under tremendous pressure from different members of his extended family. While apportioning the power pie between the warring Dayanidhi Maran and Azhagiri, the octogenarian is also answerable to Rajathi Ammal when she asks how the patriarch could ignore her daughter Kanimozhi.
On another side, Karunanidhi has to keep his daughter Selvi, who is married to Murasoli Maran’s brother, by keeping the interests of the Marans fulfilled.
Stalin need not yield to such pressure groups within the family. By virtue of being an inheritor and not the patriarch, Stalin will have to only keep the family members happy, not bend over backwards to accommodate their whims and fancies. This would augur well for a party, which still preserves some remnants of its cadre-based past. As more voices within the party units will resonate over the cacophony of warring family members, party cadres may redefine and rediscover the purpose of their toil. In other words, the DMK will become more party-centric and less family-centric. That it takes an inheritor to lead the DMK from dynasty to democracy is a case of classic irony.