Daily Times

Imran Khan complains that politics in Pakistan have been dominated by descendants of former presidents or prime ministers. Bilawal Bhutto is of the Bhutto legacy, Hamza Sharif is the nephew of Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif and son of Chief Minister (CM) Shahbaz Sharif, and Monis Elahi is the son of former deputy PM Pervez Elahi and nephew of former PM Chaudhry Shujaat. The leaders of the Awami National Party (ANP) and JUI-F are also no exception. Political dynasties not only breed in Pakistan but are also present in other democracies such as India where the Gandhi dynasty has spanned three generations and four different national leaders. The main concern over political dynasties is that inequality in the distribution of political power may not eliminate imperfections in democratic representation. However, the classic elite theorists Pareto, Mosca and Michels held that the domination of large societies by small elites is inevitable. According to Michels, elite persistence undermines attempts to reform institutions, leading to captured democracies, wherein economic institutions and policies disproportionately benefit the elite while, even under democracy, forces operate that necessarily lead to oligarchy.
Political dynasties undermine the quality of democracy and economic progress in the long run and favour a particular form of elite persistence in which a single or few family groups monopolise political power. As a consequence, the reform of important economic institutions is often obstructed by members of dynasties who benefit from the status quo. The concentration of political power in the Bhuttos and Sharifs has increased the risk of political capture and the adoption of policies and institutions that only benefit a very narrow set of interests. Bilawal’s election is not the first case in Pakistani history of power inheritance. The election of Bilawal Bhutto as chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in December 2007, after Benazir Bhutto was murdered, in the chaotic run-up to the general elections proves that dynastic politics are a preserve of third world democracies and dictatorships. Bilawal Bhutto may be following his father to become Pakistan’s PM but there is a crop of ambitious political sons who are making a mark for themselves in different sectors. It is very unlikely that a country like Pakistan that draws its leaders from a given narrow pool of powerful families will choose the leaders best suited for public office. Although this may seem sad and silly, it is a reality and we have to change it.
The Middle East and South Asia have proved to be the most fertile ground for political dynasties. In 2000, after the death of Syria’s President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor. In Iraq, too, Saddam Hussein was grooming his son, Qusai Hussein, to succeed him. He had elevated his son to membership of the then policymaking Regional Command of the Baath Party. All these instances are from highly centralised, one-party states where a longstanding leader ensured a smooth succession because of his total control over party machinery. That being said, industrialised democracies are also not immune to political dynasties. In the developing world, the Kennedys were the most famous western political dynasty, evidence that elected political dynasties have also been a generally accepted feature of the US’s political landscape.
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to top office. Bhutto, Bandaranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rehman in Bangladesh and the Kennedys in the US were all populists with charisma that was easily transferred to their scions and close relatives. They were those whose leadership was etched into the popular imagination and people identified with these charismatic leaders almost automatically. The Bhutto and Sharif dynasties emerge as the natural unit of political organisation in democracies because political parties have been traditionally weak in Pakistan. It can be argued that family fame, which helps dynastic scions, would have less effect in competitive environments. One possible reason is that when a party safely holds a majority of voters in the country, those in control of a party can afford to favour candidates to whom they are connected by family or social ties. Under more severe competition, party elites cannot afford strategies other than fielding the best possible candidates, regardless of family connections. The fact that dynastic politicians are less electable against stronger competition suggests that dynastic self-perpetuation in Pakistan gets in the way of delegating power to effective politicians. The Bhuttos and Sharifs have become a brand name that provides politicians with incentives to invest in their political reputation. Voters find it rational and useful to elect members of political dynasties and relatives of previous incumbents benefit from the political investments made by their predecessors, gladly channelling resources to their constituents. This creates an equation where dynasties become more powerful with every election. Lack of a level playing field for all political parties adds to the strength of political dynasties in Pakistan.
The question is: what is the logical explanation behind their successive rule? First, access to the political system in most third world countries is expensive in terms of funding and only those who can afford the wealth and resources and have the right connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Bilawal Bhutto and Hamza Sharif fit the bill as politicians from established families, with enough credentials due to their famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal. Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods such as a democratic struggle and, hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia and the Bhutto family in Pakistan are some examples of this type. Whatever the cause, more often than not, having a famous surname helps in politics, whether it is a socialist party regime, a liberal secular progressive party or an Islamic party or, for that matter, just a plain old traditional democratic tehreek (movement). Whether we like it or not, political lineage buttressed by corrupt wealth continues unendingly to assure them of a regular place in Pakistani politics.

The writer is a professor of Psychiatry and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com