The cult of personality
Pakistan is a country that needs to be wary of power being concentrated in one individual given its history
The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and also teaches at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He holds an LLM from New York University where he was a Hauser Global Scholar. He tweets @HNiaziii
While writing the Federalist Papers, James Madison knew that he had to convince the American people that the federal constitution would create a system different from British monarchy. In Federalist No 69 he wrote of how the office of the president shoulnot be inherited. This abhorrence towards dynasty played a great role in the election of George Washington as the first president of the United States. Washington had no children, and therefore, no chance of an heir using his accomplishments to rise to power. As American democracy evolved, so too did controls over the rise of a cult of personality. In the end, you could only be president for two terms.
While term limits controlled the rise of a cult around the incumbent president, it did not control nepotism. The Kennedy presidency created the myth of Camelot. As John F Kennedy appointed his brother as the attorney general, he styled himself as King Arthur, with Bobby the loyal Lancelot. It was an appointment so drenched in the poison of nepotism that it would be the catalyst for Lyndon Johnson enacting America’s anti-nepotism law: barring the president or a member of Congress from employing a relative to public office. This union of presidential term limits and anti-nepotism laws has served the American nation well in preventing both dynasty and the cult of personality.
Asia, on the other hand, has much to learn. There is a creeping trend in the continent where political leaders are attempting to morph into emperors (China, Russia), or in the alternative, to create a political dynasty in which last names matter more than actual leadership capabilities (Singapore, Sri Lanka, India). Pakistan has the misfortune of suffering from twin maladies.
There is an obvious link between the two problems: the cult must be formed before the dynasty can be built. The 18th Amendment should not have removed term limits for the prime minister. Pakistan is a country that needs to be wary of power being concentrated in one individual given its history. While civilian leaders were not the usual suspects for this, they have attempted to style themselves as emperors. Think Nawaz’s attempt at becoming Amirul Momineen or Zulfikar Ali Bhutto creating a private army in the Federal Security Force. The most powerful political parties in the country build their entire election narratives around one supreme leader or family. Such campaigns are hard to square with democratic ideals. For democracy isn’t just about the ballot box, it is also about not encouraging rulers to overstay their welcome and to prevent the entrenchment of the elected.
A maximum of two terms as prime minister could go a long way in curing this problem, and this would of course mean a maximum of two terms, not the absurd loophole that exists in Russia. A term limit would demand leaders to keep one eye on the calendar and focus on getting things done with the time given to them if they wish for their party to be re-elected. It will force a party mandate rather than an individual one. The political party and its manifesto will be what is most important, since it must be seen as giving results to the people rather than creating a cult of personality around one individual. No longer would the party be able to get re-elected by simply shouting out the last name of its perpetual leader. This would change the election narrative for many political parties in Pakistan: the PPP’s entire mandate revolves around how many Bhuttos they can name in one speech, while the PML-N jostles with how many members of the Sharif family can fit on a stage. A maximum limit of two terms would also prevent the incumbent prime minister from keeping the seat warm till their heir is ready to take over.
Which ties into the related problem of nepotism or dynastic politics. It is essential to be cautious in our assessment of children who bear the same last name as past leaders. We don’t want them to be able to project past success, which they had nothing to do with, as their own. Yet, the Constitution does enable such things given that you can become a member of the National Assembly at the mere age of 25. This has often resulted in the utilisation of a last name to grab a seat in parliament, as if it is a family heirloom, without the baggage of a record that shows how you can handle such an important responsibility. At 25 there is often little in terms of a record of work experience or how one handles themselves in the real world. It is therefore vital to increase the age from 25 to one where there is at least some past record that can be scrutinised to tell us if that person is fit for office or not. It is also necessary that whenever a blood relative is being appointed to a political office — or any public office — the press, the opposition and the public regard them with the strictest scrutiny. Finally, Pakistan must start considering an anti-nepotism law. It is too easy for those in power to appoint their heirs (such as nepotism personified Maryam) to important posts in the government to create the illusion of experience. An anti-nepotism law, making it unlawful for appointments of relatives such as your children to any post during your tenure, would go a long way in fixing Pakistan’s dynasty problem.
The twin problems described are very real. Pakistan’s so-called most ‘democratic party’, the PPP, is a dynasty masquerading as a democratic party. Its list of leadership is astounding in how much it is based on bloodlines. The PPP would appoint Bilawal as the prime minister on this basis alone. The PML-N is the Sharif family through and through. Chaudhry Nisar is right: why should Maryam inherit political office? Why should Hamza inherit Punjab? And the party that was supposed to stand against this: the PTI, well Lodhran showed that even they thought the name Tareen mattered the most when deciding a candidate.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2018.
While term limits controlled the rise of a cult around the incumbent president, it did not control nepotism. The Kennedy presidency created the myth of Camelot. As John F Kennedy appointed his brother as the attorney general, he styled himself as King Arthur, with Bobby the loyal Lancelot. It was an appointment so drenched in the poison of nepotism that it would be the catalyst for Lyndon Johnson enacting America’s anti-nepotism law: barring the president or a member of Congress from employing a relative to public office. This union of presidential term limits and anti-nepotism laws has served the American nation well in preventing both dynasty and the cult of personality.
Asia, on the other hand, has much to learn. There is a creeping trend in the continent where political leaders are attempting to morph into emperors (China, Russia), or in the alternative, to create a political dynasty in which last names matter more than actual leadership capabilities (Singapore, Sri Lanka, India). Pakistan has the misfortune of suffering from twin maladies.
There is an obvious link between the two problems: the cult must be formed before the dynasty can be built. The 18th Amendment should not have removed term limits for the prime minister. Pakistan is a country that needs to be wary of power being concentrated in one individual given its history. While civilian leaders were not the usual suspects for this, they have attempted to style themselves as emperors. Think Nawaz’s attempt at becoming Amirul Momineen or Zulfikar Ali Bhutto creating a private army in the Federal Security Force. The most powerful political parties in the country build their entire election narratives around one supreme leader or family. Such campaigns are hard to square with democratic ideals. For democracy isn’t just about the ballot box, it is also about not encouraging rulers to overstay their welcome and to prevent the entrenchment of the elected.
A maximum of two terms as prime minister could go a long way in curing this problem, and this would of course mean a maximum of two terms, not the absurd loophole that exists in Russia. A term limit would demand leaders to keep one eye on the calendar and focus on getting things done with the time given to them if they wish for their party to be re-elected. It will force a party mandate rather than an individual one. The political party and its manifesto will be what is most important, since it must be seen as giving results to the people rather than creating a cult of personality around one individual. No longer would the party be able to get re-elected by simply shouting out the last name of its perpetual leader. This would change the election narrative for many political parties in Pakistan: the PPP’s entire mandate revolves around how many Bhuttos they can name in one speech, while the PML-N jostles with how many members of the Sharif family can fit on a stage. A maximum limit of two terms would also prevent the incumbent prime minister from keeping the seat warm till their heir is ready to take over.
Which ties into the related problem of nepotism or dynastic politics. It is essential to be cautious in our assessment of children who bear the same last name as past leaders. We don’t want them to be able to project past success, which they had nothing to do with, as their own. Yet, the Constitution does enable such things given that you can become a member of the National Assembly at the mere age of 25. This has often resulted in the utilisation of a last name to grab a seat in parliament, as if it is a family heirloom, without the baggage of a record that shows how you can handle such an important responsibility. At 25 there is often little in terms of a record of work experience or how one handles themselves in the real world. It is therefore vital to increase the age from 25 to one where there is at least some past record that can be scrutinised to tell us if that person is fit for office or not. It is also necessary that whenever a blood relative is being appointed to a political office — or any public office — the press, the opposition and the public regard them with the strictest scrutiny. Finally, Pakistan must start considering an anti-nepotism law. It is too easy for those in power to appoint their heirs (such as nepotism personified Maryam) to important posts in the government to create the illusion of experience. An anti-nepotism law, making it unlawful for appointments of relatives such as your children to any post during your tenure, would go a long way in fixing Pakistan’s dynasty problem.
The twin problems described are very real. Pakistan’s so-called most ‘democratic party’, the PPP, is a dynasty masquerading as a democratic party. Its list of leadership is astounding in how much it is based on bloodlines. The PPP would appoint Bilawal as the prime minister on this basis alone. The PML-N is the Sharif family through and through. Chaudhry Nisar is right: why should Maryam inherit political office? Why should Hamza inherit Punjab? And the party that was supposed to stand against this: the PTI, well Lodhran showed that even they thought the name Tareen mattered the most when deciding a candidate.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 30th, 2018.