Since the second they met, Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) and Bobby Kennedy despised each other. And when Jack Kennedy (JFK) offered Johnson the vice-presidency — a courtesy call after beating and bruising Johnson for the party nomination — Brother Bobby burst into Johnson’s hotel room and begged him to refuse. Johnson looked Bobby in the eye … and accepted.
Not that Bobby Kennedy ever had much in common with lumbering Lyndon. The Kennedy brothers were Boston-Irish Brahmins, riding their father’s millions all the way to the White House. Johnson was a wheeler-dealer from the Deep South (his ruined father haunting him till the end of his days), bullying his way to the Senate by sheer force of personality. Now vice-president, Kennedy’s Ivy League aides thought Johnson a hill-town hick, and knocked him aside. For more and more Americans, Bobby seemed the heir apparent.
So when JFK was shot, and LBJ sworn in, remorse gave way to rage for Bobby Kennedy. “It was quite clear,” said one higher-up, that Bobby could hardly stand “Lyndon Johnson sitting in his brother’s seat”. As the ’60s wore on, LBJ drowned in Vietnam, easing Bobby into a comeback. Johnson, president via sacred constitutional ritual, even began sounding like the usurper: “The thing I feared most from the first day of my Presidency was actually coming true. Robert Kennedy had openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets.”
In any event, Bobby too was shot, and America made to endure six years of Dick Nixon seething in his stead. What was left of the First Family’s presidential hopes dove into a creek along with Ted Kennedy’s car just a year later. But though the Kennedy dynasty crashed and burned before it ever took off, Johnson knew a brother-to-brother succession boded ill — both for himself, and for America’s democratic project. Over 44 presidents, only four have been father and son.
Turn closer to home, and it seems Asia never got the memo. Dynasts are democrats here; the eldest son of Singapore’s Grand Old Man, Lee Kuan Yew, is king of the island. The Burmese junta is busy coping with Aung San Suu Kyi, whose father founded the Burma they renamed Myanmar. The Philippines are overrun by families and fiefs, while the Koreas are led by the second Park and the third Kim (though General Park’s daughter stands worlds apart from the mumbling manchild in the north).
And the further south once goes, the harder the corrosion. New Rajapaksas throw their weight around in Sri Lanka. Bangladesh’s battling begums Hasina and Khaleda, daughter of a murdered father and wife of a murdered husband, claw at each other across the length and breadth of Dhaka. Old ideas in a nation of new dreams, one wonders how well Bangladesh could have done without the baggage of its knife-fighting aunties.
The world’s largest democracy, too, remains at the mercy of the House of Nehru: Indira Gandhi was able to outmuscle the old guard that once called her goongi guriya (in no small part down to messrs Yahya, Pirzada, and Bhutto), but the Nehru-Gandhis have been flatlining for a while. A man of the calibre of Manmohan Singh bows to the whims of Rahul Gandhi, a 43-year-old with the world’s worst case of teen angst. But as Indian voters, and not a few Modi-watchers, are fast finding out, Rahul is out of his depth.
And then, of course, comes Pakistan, where bloodlines run rampant from ground up. As the intermarried continue to intermarry, and political parties are given away like family pets, power is shrinking to a tinier and tinier segment of 190 million people — a number screaming for inclusion.
The party of the people threw in its lot with dynasts evermore when Begum Nusrat was anointed Chairperson-For-Life in 1979, over many a talented Hafiz, Hanif and Meraj. In response (or reaction), it used to be the unique selling point of our many Muslim Leagues that leadership didn’t travel via bloodstream. But today’s PMLs in all their shapes and sizes, Ns and Qs and Fs, all have their Chosen Ones in mind.
In a smug piece on the Bhuttos, The Guardian mused how ‘subcontinental’ dynasties perpetuated themselves through “the importance of personalities in contests stripped of ideological content” as well as “high levels of illiteracy, which make a famous name a determining factor for tens of millions of voters”. This kind of foreign tut-tutting forgets how entrenched these families are, fighting elections ideological and non-ideological, across race, class, and literacy level.
The jaahil awam cliche won’t work when jaahil dynasties and mini-dynasties are all that’s left to choose from. And even contests brimming with ideology are often between different sets of brothers and cousins and nephews, running respective party like another friendly family concern. Witness the son of Mufti Mahmood holding sway over the JUI-F’s Deobandi democrats, then veer hard left to watch Bacha Khan’s grandson do the same with the ANP’s Pathan reds.
It might even drive a man to praise both the PTI and the MQM in the same sentence, staying shy of plastering their prodigal sons on buses and billboards. Thus far.
As The Economist put it, “The consequence of being in thrall to a bloodline is a weak party that lacks shared policies or common values. Promotions are made not on merit, but on closeness to the ruling family.” But not all is lost: as both information and urbanisation take hold, people will “want to hold their government to account — over corruption, economic performance, social security and more, caring ever less about bloodlines”. One can only hope.
Besides, if love of family is what drives our leaders to drag their kids into the family business, they might be better served pushing them out altogether. Pakistan’s public arena is growing darker by the day, kidnapping its sons and killing its veterans. It may be better, all said and done, to keep them in the import/export line.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Dipak@Fahad: John F. Kennedy is/was known by his nick name of Jack Kannedy.
@Syed: haha u too.damn man.Asad Rahim got alot of boys who come to the rescue asap. That's a rare sight these days. True love huh. Cheers to that boyz ;)
@murad: yes it is. please stop venting your folly.
I feel bad for Murad Malik now, lol. He's embarrassing himself with every comment.
I save your pieces to read, Asad sb. They are a pleasure to read. To weave in these figures so casually, Hanif Ramay, SGM Peerzada, against a set topic, and make it so well readable, I thank you. I feel nostalgic for the old characters, 'old ideas', while learning about 'new dreams'.
@above: JFK was called Jack, US is 50 states.
@Fahad: 'Jack' is commonly used as a nickname for 'John'
@wajid: Official is 50, you are correct
Why dynasties are bad for you
I do not know, even after reading you.
However, if someday you want to know why Military Juntas are even worse, just call on me.
@U: and dude u very about your own issues,"Jack is common nickname for John".Like really??????
Yeah, Jack is a common nickname for John.
Lol Murad Malik clearly suffering from self esteem issues.
Here's the counter argument on family politics http://saudonpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-family-politics-debate.html
@ustad: Doing anything to attack me huh. What sin did i commit? just gave an honest opion, people liked my comment too, more than they have liked yours? then why so brutal brother. I guess you are pretty posessive about Asad Raheem huh ;) lol
@Fahad: hahaha looks like Asad Rahim's got smoe boys to unleash when his writing is critized. lol. Hey its ok Fahad i know i hurt your feelings, looks like you are a bit touchy abut Asad huh..hmmm. Its ok relax its just a post, no harm done. haha
@Fahad not true, its not an error. wiki: John Fitzgerald Kennedy, commonly known as "Jack" or by his initials JFK, was the 35th President of the United States.
@Arifq:
USA consists of 50 states !
@murad mailk : care to enlighten us with your understanding of the topic? prove it via facts etc, ridiculing without the bases does not work. better luck next time kiddo..
A minor mistake in your article JFK = John F. Kennedy not Jack Kennedy
murad malik, i think you have unhealthy obsession with this author. ET please publish my comment as you publish this man's comment on asad raheem khans great write ups and they are the most pointless feedback ever. author, look forward to your write up every time
Ok again the Kid is back with more of his senseless writing. This writer is sort of living in a delusion, like, whats the point of this article? it lacks cohesion as always is the case with this kid, and most of all no substance. Is this a history 101 he is giving? Trying to make an analogy of dynasties this kid has literally bored us with this so average column.
Lovely articulation...enjoyed reading it.
Absolutely no Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in India. We are tired.
Deep write for deep thinkers.... but u forgot to mention britain, netherland, spain, monarchies???
The language writer used is devoid of proper protocol about the most popularly elected leaders of the world. In addition the “lawyer” has used only the examples and arguments that support his stand. The biggest and last dynastic example is Bush family that is not mentioned at all. Father Bush made sure his two sons George and Jeb become governors of the two most powerful southern states. When it came to presidential elections George got the nod as Jeb’s family has lots of personal and drug problems. There is a major difference between the family politics of East and West. While Cory Aquino, Bandera N, Indira G, and Begum Bhutto were never in politics except they were forced after the murders of their male family member. Similarly both BB and Bilawal did not come into politics if it were not the killing of their parent. It may sound bad but the only way to keep the party intact and not letting it split is to nominate a family member. In addition the writer failed to mention (in fact he praised!) the lifetime leaders of the other parties. In other words it is fine to be a lifetime party chief but it is very wrong if the same chief is murdered the new chief cannot be from the same family! Dictatorship of one man is fine and praised. In principle both are equally bad. Party post usurped by one man or two men are the same dictatorial rule and mindset.
Dear writer I understand and respect your angst with familial politics but cannot agree with your analogy, America with 53 states dominated in many cases by families.
A very good read. The ending is nice and dramatic, but it's a bit of a straw man, isn't it? I mean come on. Even the most naive and starry eyed Pakistani Jiala (of any party, we have many now that can boast of having jialas) wouldn't say dynastic politics is about love of family, what with Benazir and Zulfiqar, etc.
Wasnt the article titled why dynasties are bad for us? He just mentioned a few dynasties and forgot in midway what was he writing about.
A very well written article, increased my knowledge of Asian politics. Interesting how dynastic rule is so entrenched in Asia.
This is what N leaguers and PPP boys never understand. As soon as Nawaz and zardari retire their parties will implode the PPP is already showing signs.
A sharp, informative one again, Asad. Your articles are a bit sporadic though, would suggest you write on a weekly basis.