Inherited politics: choice or destiny?
Blind hereditary political culture needs to end
The writer is a youth development expert with over 12 years of experience in the social development sector
Hereditary politics leave a question mark in the minds of many. People raise a query time and again: why do descendants of a political leader have to be the next leader? How can democracy justify dynasty in politics? The counterargument says that if a child of a doctor, bureaucrat or lawyer can adopt the same profession, why can’t a politician’s heir?
One may take the regional case of South Asian political legacy we find examples of. Former prime minister Indra Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India. Bangladesh’s present PM Hasina Wajid is the daughter of Mujibur Rehman, the first PM of the country. Former PM Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the wife of the late PM of Sri Lanka SWRD Bandaranaike. Pakistan’s first female PM Benazir Bhutto was the daughter of PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. All of these examples possessed the highest political hereditary position in their respective countries.
Apart from Indra Gandhi, the rest carried a shared legacy of assassination of their ancestors’ (fathers and husbands). They had to suffer imposed political hardships at a young age, house arrest, coerced exile, fleeing their homes’, defamation and character assassination. One can see their decision to opt for political leadership as the culmination of courage in the face of immense discrimination, curbing their existence at a human level and losing their blood relations. The situation compelled them to drift towards their political destiny as a natural response.
On the other hand, we find examples in the Bush family and the Clintons in the US politics, and PM Justin Trudeau of Canada who are descendants of former political leaders, but they have evolved and emerged to the spotlight through political process. In their case, democratic representatives have strengthened political institutions and processes which allow heirs to follow in the footsteps of their ancestors within the political framework and practise learning at the grassroots level, eventually marking the highest ranks in the domain. If we take the example of Trudeau, he joined politics as a party member and then a youth wing leader.
In Pakistan today, we find the hereditary political name-game in the form of Maryam Nawaz, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Hamza Shahbaz and Kulsoom Nawaz. Bilawal may use his mother’s assassination for his political gain; Hamza suffered sanction to travel abroad for eight years, while his entire family was in exile. He was put behind bars as a student and had to face difficulties for being son of a political leader. This may work in his favour.
But in this modern age of information proliferation, voters do not seem satisfied with these stories and question the descendant’s political aptitude to rule mainstream political parties amidst senior, experienced and trained politicians who may better serve as second tier of political leadership. Political parties must supervise the development of politics as an institution and strengthen a democratic culture within their parties and country. They seem to follow the same old colonial concept of divide and rule. Their party merits have proven to be weaker in terms of transparency within party elections, trusting and testing second tier of mature politicians, practicing merit and code of conduct.
Hence, successors have a right to join politics the same way doctors, bureaucrats or other professionals do, but through competitive processes. A doctors’ or a bureaucrat’s descendant cannot be a doctor or civil servant unless he/she passes a competitive examination and completes years of coursework along with training. Blind hereditary political culture needs to end, and in place a political framework of merit and code of conduct should emerge which may safeguard future generations from allegations of corruption and obstacles in excelling their political careers.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 19th, 2017.
One may take the regional case of South Asian political legacy we find examples of. Former prime minister Indra Gandhi was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM of India. Bangladesh’s present PM Hasina Wajid is the daughter of Mujibur Rehman, the first PM of the country. Former PM Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the wife of the late PM of Sri Lanka SWRD Bandaranaike. Pakistan’s first female PM Benazir Bhutto was the daughter of PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. All of these examples possessed the highest political hereditary position in their respective countries.
Apart from Indra Gandhi, the rest carried a shared legacy of assassination of their ancestors’ (fathers and husbands). They had to suffer imposed political hardships at a young age, house arrest, coerced exile, fleeing their homes’, defamation and character assassination. One can see their decision to opt for political leadership as the culmination of courage in the face of immense discrimination, curbing their existence at a human level and losing their blood relations. The situation compelled them to drift towards their political destiny as a natural response.
On the other hand, we find examples in the Bush family and the Clintons in the US politics, and PM Justin Trudeau of Canada who are descendants of former political leaders, but they have evolved and emerged to the spotlight through political process. In their case, democratic representatives have strengthened political institutions and processes which allow heirs to follow in the footsteps of their ancestors within the political framework and practise learning at the grassroots level, eventually marking the highest ranks in the domain. If we take the example of Trudeau, he joined politics as a party member and then a youth wing leader.
In Pakistan today, we find the hereditary political name-game in the form of Maryam Nawaz, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Hamza Shahbaz and Kulsoom Nawaz. Bilawal may use his mother’s assassination for his political gain; Hamza suffered sanction to travel abroad for eight years, while his entire family was in exile. He was put behind bars as a student and had to face difficulties for being son of a political leader. This may work in his favour.
But in this modern age of information proliferation, voters do not seem satisfied with these stories and question the descendant’s political aptitude to rule mainstream political parties amidst senior, experienced and trained politicians who may better serve as second tier of political leadership. Political parties must supervise the development of politics as an institution and strengthen a democratic culture within their parties and country. They seem to follow the same old colonial concept of divide and rule. Their party merits have proven to be weaker in terms of transparency within party elections, trusting and testing second tier of mature politicians, practicing merit and code of conduct.
Hence, successors have a right to join politics the same way doctors, bureaucrats or other professionals do, but through competitive processes. A doctors’ or a bureaucrat’s descendant cannot be a doctor or civil servant unless he/she passes a competitive examination and completes years of coursework along with training. Blind hereditary political culture needs to end, and in place a political framework of merit and code of conduct should emerge which may safeguard future generations from allegations of corruption and obstacles in excelling their political careers.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 19th, 2017.