The question why some leaders endure while others fade swiftly has preoccupied political scientists for decades. From Samuel Huntington’s notion of institutional adaptability to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s selectorate theory of political survival and Rajni Kothari’s analysis of power realignment in Indian politics, the central insight is clear: longevity in office is less about charisma and more about a leader’s capacity to renew legitimacy, manage coalitions, and institutionalise governance.
Bihar’s Nitish Kumar exemplifies this thesis of political longevity. Since 2005, he has remained the state’s unbroken pivot of power—serving as Chief Minister almost continuously except for a brief interruption—by mastering the art of adaptation, coalition management, and administrative credibility in one of India’s most volatile political arenas.
As Huntington argued, political order in developing societies depends on institutional innovation in response to social change. Nitish transformed Bihar’s fragmented post-Lalu landscape by crafting a new social bloc—an alliance of women, Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs), Mahadalits, and aspirational lower-middle groups.
Democratic longevity
Unlike the Lalu-era politics of solidarity and spectacle, Nitish anchored his authority in governance-based legitimacy. His women-centred welfare initiatives—ranging from the cycle and uniform schemes for girls to prohibition and employment programmes—shifted the idiom of politics from identity to what might be termed a maternal welfare state. The latest instance of this strategy is the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana—involving Rs 10,000 direct transfers to over one crore women—which extends this logic of material reassurance. As political scientist Pradeep Chhibber’s studies on incumbency in India show, such welfare transfers generate a form of reciprocal trust that cements the incumbent’s relationship with the electorate, especially the poor and first-time beneficiaries.
Nitish Kumar’s longevity is also sustained by his grip over Bihar’s administrative machinery, revitalised in the post–jungle raj phase of the state. Following southern models of good governance and bureaucratic autonomy, development-oriented senior officers have become institutional extensions of Nitish’s governance model, ensuring efficient programme delivery and policy continuity. This has fostered what Kautilya would have described as ‘statecraft as political capital’—the use of administrative competence as a moral and symbolic resource.
The visible transformation of Bihar’s infrastructure, improvements in electrification and roads, and the steady functioning of welfare schemes have consolidated Nitish’s image as Sushasan Babu. In a state where governance has long been the rarest political commodity, administrative stability itself becomes a powerful electoral currency.
Nitish’s political biography is equally defined by an extraordinary coalitional elasticity—his ability to navigate alliances without losing the chief minister’s chair. In this, he embodies the pragmatism that James MacGregor Burns identified as essential to transformational leadership: the capacity to balance conviction with compromise. He has been a part of every major bloc—the NDA, the Mahagathbandhan, and back again to the NDA—while managing to retain moral and institutional centrality. This elasticity, often dismissed as opportunism, reflects what Rajni Kothari described as the politics of consensus and containment: an enduring mode of Indian politics where shifting alignments preserve systemic equilibrium.
Nitish’s willingness to cross the river without capsizing the boat shows that adaptability, not ideological purity, is the secret behind democratic longevity. This has been further enabled by the BJP’s own pragmatic acceptance of Nitish’s governance and welfare model, which continues to shape Bihar’s political grammar.
His endurance also rests on a relatively institutionalised party structure. Scholars such as Angelo Panebianco and Maurice Duverger have long argued that routinised organisation distinguishes enduring political actors from fragile populist movements. Nitish’s Janata Dal (United), though modest in size, has evolved into a disciplined, cadre-based formation with an effective base in EBC-dominated regions.
His strategic use of women’s self-help networks through the Jeevika Didi programme has expanded the JD(U)’s grassroots presence beyond caste lines. Professionally managed campaigns and sustained local mobilisation have ensured that the party functions as a durable electoral machine. In an age dominated by personality cults, Nitish’s semi-institutionalised party provides continuity beyond his personal authority.
Also read: Rahul and Modi turn Bihar into a national showdown. Tejashwi keeps it local
A moral foil
Equally significant is his moral restraint amid a culture of political excess. In contrast to the rhetorical populism of Lalu Prasad Yadav or the astroturf activism of Prashant Kishor, Nitish embodies a quieter, managerial ethos. Max Weber’s typology of authority reminds us that rational-legal legitimacy often outlasts charisma; Nitish’s appeal lies in this bureaucratic rationality and self-styled modesty. His restrained speech, understated demeanor, and emphasis on sobriety have made him a moral foil to Bihar’s more theatrical politicians.
Comparatively, Nitish’s continuity invites parallels with Naveen Patnaik in Odisha and Pawan Chamling in Sikkim—leaders who converted bureaucratic efficiency into political authority. Yet Bihar’s fragmented, caste-ridden, and volatile landscape renders Nitish’s endurance even more striking. While Naveen’s Biju Janata Dal drew strength from a cohesive Odia identity, Nitish has operated within an evolving pan-Bihari consciousness where alliances and defections are frequent. His longevity, therefore, represents not hegemonic dominance but adaptive continuity, a capacity to survive turbulence through negotiation and incremental reform.
As Nitish Kumar’s career enters the final lap of his political marathon, it also tests the limits of longevity. As Adam Przeworski reminds us, durability is not destiny. Leadership endurance can mutate into exhaustion if institutions fail to renew themselves. Nitish’s advancing age, occasional incoherence in speeches, the emergence of a youthful opposition led by Tejashwi Yadav and Mukesh Sahani, and movements like Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj mark a generational turn. Political longevity, after all, is not just measured in years, but also in a leader’s ability to outlast the moment that produced him.
Still, as the 2025 Bihar assembly elections enter their final stretch, Nitish Kumar’s story stands as one of democratic endurance unparalleled in modern Indian politics. He has ruled not through demagoguery or dynasty but through a continual recalibration of power and principle—a balancing act between ideology and administration, flexibility and firmness. In this sense, Nitish exemplifies what British historian Peter Laslett called the politics of continuity: a leader who, by mastering the rhythm of renewal, transforms survival itself into leadership. His journey offers a reminder that in a democracy of churn and chance, endurance may be the rarest—and most refined—form of political art.
Ashwani Kumar is a poet, policy researcher, and professor of political science at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Mumbai). Chandrachur Singh teaches Political Science at Hindu College, University of Delhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)