Politics As The Base Structure?

Marx views economics as the most basic and most important institution of society which supports and influences other institutions (social and political). Sociologists especially early ones like Durkheim and Weber made a case for social institutions as being the most important institutions of society. Can we make a case for one institution vis a vis another? Or rather should we?Let me say it at the outset that, all institutions have some functions to fulfill and all are important for smooth running of the society.

Now coming to the present blogpost, we view history and its different eras through the political Empires or dynasties which ruled. It was the reign of the Emperors' which defined lives for their people. There was no other identity except, that they were subjects of the Roman or Byzantine Empire. 

It was not just the economic systems but political Capitalist and Socialist regimes which defined and affected foreign policy in the Cold War era. Of course Economics was a big part of it but decision makers about the Economic policies have always been all politicians. We remember Germany for Hitler or England's Margaret Thatcher and not vice versa.  

At the National Museum or even in our books, our history is divided into different sections or eras from Guptas to Mauryas to Mughals to British etc. The reign of political dynasties provided the identity to subjects as boundaries over land kept redrawing post every battle. 

I had a discussion with a friend recently who talked about growing up in Communist Bengal where it did not matter what class people belonged to. In comparison, Delhi as a city has always been all about status and lineage. Communist party rule ensured class becomes insignificant under its rule, and Congress party rule at other places ensured status remains important. UP has always been ruled by parties playing on the caste and religion aspect and the society gets polarized on these lines. (The reverse argument can be society has been stratified hence the ruling parties. Social influencing the politics, but politics has fanned these major fault lines even further).
The ruling party ensures the kind of life and debates its citizens participate in. Congress party has mostly followed liberal, non-interfering kind of center-left social politics. People born in the Nehruvian era still carry different principles as compared to people born in Indira's Emergency period or later. For people born in the 1990s the era of caste and religious politics coupled with liberalization, being Indian is a completely different experience for them. This generation has not seen the days of country's financial struggles or sharing of one single TV screen or a landline phone by an entire Mohalla. Thus, the sharing of socialism gets replaced by the single, personal "I" phone, i.e. My phone (no sharing please, we are in the Capitalist/ post Liberal era, my privacy/space is important!).
           

 The present Demonetization where Modinomics (Modi's Economics, soon turning into a special academic discipline) turned entire nation towards barter exchange due to lack of cash. (Political dispensation again deciding the economic and social life of people). The political regimes' affect cultural/social leanings of the era. Under Ashoka, Buddhism received state patronage but disappeared later. Akbar's liberal policies can be contrasted with Aurangzeb's insistence on theology inspired Islam (clashes with Sufis like Sarmad/Dara Shikoh), i.e. ruler's own ideological leanings define the politics of that era. From Hitler to the cow politics of Modi to the liberal era of Congress leaders including Manmohan Singh significant social changes can be witnessed under these leaders. If we do consider political institution as important and not  the most important even then we should be more vigilant towards who we choose as our rulers, under democracy this becomes even more significant. We are not choosing only for ourselves but we are choosing society's -social/ economic/ political life for that period.