“The Ponda by-election can become a defining moment. The constituency has historically been politically sensitive, and the BJP’s choice of candidate will signal whether it intends to promote a fresh face or recycle another family name. If it opts for the latter, it will be another sign that dynastic influence has become part of the BJP’s DNA — a reality the party may find difficult to justify to its own supporters.
Critics argue that family participation in politics is not inherently wrong. After all, in a democracy, everyone has the right to contest elections. What makes it problematic, however, is when a party that claims to reject dynastic culture begins to rely on it systematically. When political positions are decided more by bloodline than performance, governance begins to serve private interests rather than the public good.”
The Bharatiya Janata Party rose to power in both Goa and at the Centre riding on a powerful political narrative — that of standing against dynastic politics. For years, it accused the Congress of being a family-run enterprise, where political power passed not through merit or public approval but through lineage and inheritance. This message resonated strongly with voters who were tired of seeing politics as a family business.
But over time, the BJP itself has begun to mirror the very pattern it once condemned. In Goa, the rise of family-centric politics within the party is evident, and the list of examples continues to grow — the Lobos, the Monserattes, and the Ranes are the most obvious. These families hold multiple constituencies between spouses, siblings, and children, blurring the line between party loyalty and family loyalty.
As the party prepares to decide its candidate for the Ponda constituency in the coming by-election, it faces yet another opportunity — or test — to show that it truly means what it says. BJP’s Goa president Damu Naik has clarified that the candidate will be chosen in consultation with the high command and the Chief Minister. While that may sound procedural, it also raises a crucial question: will the choice reflect merit and grassroots credibility, or will it once again favour entrenched political families with influence and networks?
In Goa, dynastic politics has been normalized across party lines. The Congress may have pioneered it, but the BJP has certainly perfected it in its own way. The Rane family is a textbook example. Pratapsingh Rane’s son, Vishwajit, moved from the Congress to the BJP and retained his position comfortably. In Bardez, the husband-wife duo of Michael and Delilah Lobo enjoy strong political control over two constituencies. Similarly, in Panaji and Taleigao, the Monserattes operate as a unit, controlling adjacent seats and maintaining a tight political hold over local structures.
When the BJP came to power in Goa, it promised a shift — a break from these old-style power clusters. However, what followed was a practical embrace of them. The party, once keen on nurturing new grassroots leaders, began absorbing established politicians from rival camps, many of whom brought along their family networks.
This strategy might deliver electoral convenience, but it corrodes the BJP’s moral argument. The anti-dynasty stance was not just rhetoric; it was a core ideological promise — one that helped distinguish it from the Congress. To betray that promise is to weaken its credibility, especially among young party workers who still believe in internal democracy and political meritocracy.
The Ponda by-election can become a defining moment. The constituency has historically been politically sensitive, and the BJP’s choice of candidate will signal whether it intends to promote a fresh face or recycle another family name. If it opts for the latter, it will be another sign that dynastic influence has become part of the BJP’s DNA — a reality the party may find difficult to justify to its own supporters.
Critics argue that family participation in politics is not inherently wrong. After all, in a democracy, everyone has the right to contest elections. What makes it problematic, however, is when a party that claims to reject dynastic culture begins to rely on it systematically. When political positions are decided more by bloodline than performance, governance begins to serve private interests rather than the public good.
Goa’s electorate is perceptive. It has often rewarded leaders who are accessible, accountable, and genuinely local. The BJP must understand that its long-term credibility in the state depends not just on its ability to win seats but on its ability to maintain consistency between what it preaches and what it practices.
As it heads into another electoral season, the party must decide whether it will remain trapped in the same old political formula or carve out a new path. If the BJP wants to prove it is truly different, it has to start at home — by ending dynastic dominance within its own ranks. Otherwise, its criticism of the Congress will remain little more than hollow words wrapped in saffron.
