.png)
.jpg)
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced Sunday that he had reshuffled his Cabinet, increasing its size and elevating younger members of India's ruling Congress Party to higher levels of government. The announcement marks the beginning of a generational leadership change within India’s National Congress Party.
Singh is expected to step down in 2014, so the new Cabinet will not likely make any significant changes during the remainder of his term. The party still retains its old leadership structure – Sonia Gandhi remains president -- but it is attempting to reorganize and restructure in order to help its younger politicians compete successfully on the national scale.
A generational leadership change occurs when a small pool of elite politicians at the top of a country's government is responsible for the survival of the regime. These politicians are ministers, party leaders and heads of government. They are largely interchangeable and offer a mostly unified vision of where they are taking their country. They share backgrounds, having grown up together during key phases of their country's history, and mentors, having been similarly educated. But these cadres of elites are continually replaced. When we talk about a country's generational leadership change, we are talking about how a regime manages the transition of ideologies, historical references and policies that shape the individuals leading that regime.
In India, political parties capable of relinquishing control of government manage generational leadership changes. Since so much power is devolved to the regional governments, the central government in New Delhi has limited say in how large swaths of the country are run. This lowers the stakes of a power transition. Thus, the introduction of the Congress Party’s next generation of leadership through the abrupt announcement of a Cabinet reshuffle was a notable event for close followers of Indian politics, but not a momentous shift for the country at large. But generational leadership change is a slow, gradual process that is much more carefully managed than Singh's announcement made it appear. The examples of two other countries – China and Saudi Arabia -- currently managing generational leadership changes demonstrate the challenges such transitions present.
China is preparing to hand power to its fifth generation of leadership later this year and early next year. (The transition will be ironed out Nov. 8 during closed-door meetings of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.) China's generational power shift follows fairly strict rules and has been in the works for years. The country's next generation of leaders must be younger than 68 and they must have worked their way up through the Chinese Communist Party, proving their abilities in various ministerial posts and regional leadership positions. The core leadership of the party is typically limited to ten years, or two terms, a stipulation intended to provide leadership stability and predictability.
China's fifth generation was born after 1944, which makes it the first generation of Chinese leaders who either were born after or barely remember the Chinese revolution in 1949. Instead, they were shaped and formed by the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s. They have also profited from China's economic opening during the 1980s. As such, this generation's allegiance is less to the ideals of Maoism and more to the stability that economic success has brought to the country. In China, the party is integrated into the regime. Political dissension and power struggles within the party put state stability at risk. The prospect of a new generation of leaders with a different approach to party ideals could spell change within the party, and thus to the Chinese regime.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be transitioning to its third and fourth generation of leaders within the next decade or so. The value of China's practice of selecting leaders 68 years or younger becomes apparent when considering that Saudi Arabia's generational transitions essentially are brought about by death. The sons of the founder of the Kingdom have led Saudi Arabia since 1953; the current King, Abdullah, is 88 years old and thought to be near death. In Saudi Arabia, the royal family is the state. It is not separated from the regime by a party structure, however it still has factions and sub-groups. This makes the Saudi generational leadership change process extremely opaque. It's a family affair, essentially, in which the members of the royal family, when confronted by the death of a king or crown prince, consult with one another until a consensus is reached on who should succeed. There is a formal succession policy in place, but it hasn't been used in practice.
The challenge of hereditary succession is that while each generation grows in number, the available positions remain essentially the same. This increases the level of competition for power among the grandsons and great-grandsons and muddles the line of succession since the family tree branches off in multiple directions. As the family grows, order of birth matters less and political power matters more, which causes more contention. Saudi Arabia has largely used its oil wealth to deal with challenges to internal stability, but this policy may be reaching its limits over the coming decades as the third and fourth generations assume leadership.
Oil wealth has been a defining characteristic of Saudi Arabia and one that the next generations can certainly rely on, but they likely won't be able to wield that power as effectively as their predecessors. Oil production has increased around the world, decreasing Saudi Arabia's share of global oil reserves and its leverage. The lack of a clear tool, like oil, to exercise power will further complicate the internal politics of the Saudi royal family for the third- and fourth-generation leaders.
Generational shifts in any political system can be a delicate process. In India, this is a minor political shift in the country’s oldest political party. In China and Saudi Arabia, leadership transitions define the future of the state.