Mistaken Comparisons - Political Families vs Dynasties

January 6th, 2008 Maria · No Comments

Source: www.pkpolitics (Pakistan Politics)January 5, 2008 | Filed Under Featured Articles

Author: Gul Bukhari

Drawing Rooms, Newspapers, Television and the Internet are abuzz with discussion on political dynasties amid Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s accession to the PPP Chairmanship. Much has been said comparing this event with regional, Far Eastern and Western ‘political dynasties’. Whilst bemoaning the phenomenon as such, respected analysts the world over have likened Bilawal’s rise to the PPP chairmanship to what has been witnessed in the U.S. in relation to the Kennedy, Bush and Clinton names.

This genre of argument is a dangerous fudging of the clear differences between the two distinct phenomenon that occur in the third world and the west, and can serve to unjustly justify the political accessions that take place in Asian and Middle Eastern countries, using examples of the western countries. Perhaps this confusion arises from the current trend of mixing the concept of dynasty with that of family.

Stepping back a little, the simplest definition of dynasty is ‘a line of rulers from the same family’, with the central concept being that of inheritance of a monarch’s realm/ wealth by virtue of birth right. Compare this with the concept of ‘political family’, where political power accrues to generations of related individuals. At this point, however, it becomes interesting to note that the political families of the world can be roughly divided into two distinct types: those that behave after the fashion of dynasties and those that behave after the fashion of a family that might belong to any trade or profession. Therein lie the analysts’ mistaken comparisons.

The Bhuttos of Pakistan, the Gandhis of India and the Kims of Korea are political dynasties, where the political mantle is clearly inherited, solely by virtue of birth. The transference process is dictatorial and autocratic in varying degrees, but dictatorial and accessional in nature nevertheless. This is fundamentally different to plain ‘political familes’ of the west, like the Bush or the Clinton families. A comparison between the two categories is invalid, and the two cannot not be lumped together. The Bush, Clinton and Kennedy families are like blacksmiths’, doctors’, lawyers’ or business families, where sons and daughters tend to follow the forefathers’ profession. The younger generations in these families naturally take advantage of the infrastructure, goodwill, and reputation created by the elders. They learn the ropes, take advantage of the family connections, and the family’s financial backing to launch themselves into the family profession. It is a common phenomenon in many trades and professions, and the advantages accruing to anyone wishing to go into the family business or profession cannot be denied. But neither, then, can these families be compared to politically dynastic families like the Bhuttos or the Kims.

Tremendous political benefit accrued to Hillary Clinton by virtue of being Bill Clinton’s wife. The exposure and the experience all helped to launch her political career. However, Hillary is not only a qualified lawyer with undisputed professional achievements, but more importantly, has to fight her way through the primaries to get a vote of confidence from democrats all over the country to bag the democratic presidential nomination. Bill Clinton did not nominate her as either chairperson of the democratic party nor as the next presidential candidate. John F Kennedy did not nominate Bob F Kennedy to any post via a will. As President, JFK nominated Bob Kennedy as the Attorney General, acting well within his constitutional powers. Bob continued as Attorney General under the next president Lyndon Johnson, but because of their differences, was forced to run for the U.S. Senate before a year was out.

Contrast this to the Bhutto case. Ms. Bhutto nominated her husband (who in turn unilaterally passed the mantle to his son) from the grave. The merit of this case? A bloodline. Again, compare it to the case of Kim II-Sung and Kim Jong-il where the father, upon his death was declared ‘Eternal President’, and the son, upon the father’s death, became the de-facto head of State.

Clearly, it is time analysts stopped excusing political dynasties, citing cases of political families. It is a disservice, whether borne of naiveté or of deliberate subversion, to the process, and understanding, of democracy in the developing nations.