Marcus Aurelius is widely regarded to one of the top three Roman Emperors, who ruled from 121 AD until 180 AD. Indeed, Niccolò Machiavelli described him to the be the last of the ‘Five Good Emperors’ in his posthumously published book, ‘The Discourses on Livy.’ He is often described as the ‘Philosopher Emperor’ whose competent administration and love for fairness and free speech earned him great admiration and respect over those he ruled. Notwithstanding, his philosophical leanings and intellectual feats, Marcus Aurelius made a fundamental mistake in appointing his natural son, Commodus as Caesar in 166 AD. Appointing one’s biological son as heir was regarded to be unusual at the time as Roman Emperors were known to adopt their heirs, like Emperor Tiberius had adopted Emperor Caligula a century earlier. Commodus was the antithesis of his illustrious father. His erratic tendencies as well as the lack of political and military acumen, marked the beginning of the decline of the Roman empire. It is no small wonder that Commodus’s dictatorial rule, combined with his utter disregard of the Senate and his god-like personality cult; culminated in his assassination at the tender age of 31 years at the hands of his wrestling partner, Narcissus. Since then, we have seen a recurrence of such controversial dynastic succession throughout history, such as when Amir Muawiya I reneged on his earlier promise to Hazrat Imam Hussain, by nominating his son, Yazid I as his successor in 680 AD. His appointment is described to be the first hereditary succession in Islamic history. His (mis)rule marked the assassination of Prophet Muhammad SAW’s beloved grandson, Hazrat Imam Hussain, thereby igniting the Sunni-Shia schism in Islam. Revisionist historians still wonder to this day what would have happened if Yazid I had not been appointed his father’s successor. Would we all still be living in some form of Caliphate based upon the righteous rule and the principles of the first Islamic State of Medina? Dynastic rule and hereditary succession remains the norm across South Asia. In South Asia too, despite being the home of three big democracies, dynastic rule and hereditary succession remains the norm. In Pakistan, we have the Bhuttos – (or now referred to as the Bhutto-Zardaris) running the PPP, the Sharif clan heading the PML-N, Wali Khan’s family ruling ANP and Maulana Fazlur Rehman heading the JUI-F having inherited its mantle from his father, Mufti Mehmood. In India, we have the Nehru/Gandhi family which has given India, three Prime Ministers. In Bangladesh, there has been a historical clash and a succession of governments that have alternated between two powerful ladies-(Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of their country’s founder) and Khalida Zia who is the widow of a military dictator. Coming back to Pakistan, it was not surprising at all to hear Maulana Sherani, a former parliamentarian, and former Chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) in his press conference some while ago, where he accused his party’s head, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of manipulating intra-party elections and labelled him as being ‘selected’ rather than elected to his role. The same can be said of all our other political parties, save for perhaps Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Jamaat-e-Islami. One would have thought that after such a dismal performance in the 2018 polls by the PML-N and indeed to a certain extent, by the PPP and in their recent 16 months of misgovernance, that there would have been a change in guard and a new and progressive leader elected; as is the case in other countries around the world. Being a Westminster democracy, it may be instructive to observe what happens in the United Kingdom. After the Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had failed to win the 2019 general election, there was a fresh intra-party leadership election, which resulted in Keir Starmer QC being elected as the new Labour Leader. In contrast, political parties in Pakistan have become personal fiefdoms of certain political families, who end up being ‘selected’ on the basis of their DNA, to succeed as the new party leader following the demise of their parent or brother. One of the key problems with such hereditary succession is that political parties in Pakistan are now no longer the centers of political discourse that they once were. Such a difference of opinion in the parties would have fostered deliberations amongst their senior members in how best to deliver upon the needs and aspirations of the electorate. The decisions in such parties are nowadays dictated by the party leader, who almost invariably has been selected as ‘Chairperson for life’ much like the Roman Emperors of the past. The basis of such decisions is what would most benefit the personal interests of the party leader at any moment in time instead of what would be in the best interests of the populace. A clear example is the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act 2023, which was bulldozed through by a rump National Assembly, earlier this year by a ruling coalition to defang the Supreme Court’s powers after the latter had announced that early elections in the Punjab & KPK would happen within the constitutionally mandated time frame of 90 days. There was very little debate and dialogue by the parliamentarians, when the bill was hastily drawn up and voted on, as the hereditary autocrats heading their respective parties were simply apprehensive as to the outcome of early provincial polls and so desired the said legislative result. In such a stifling atmosphere where all ticket-holders must first swear a personal oath of loyalty to their leader before being awarded the golden party ticket, it is not surprising at all that there is very little debate in our National Assembly sessions. Nor is it startling to observe, when those same parliamentarians and party acolytes stick closely to their ‘selected’ leader even after he/she has been convicted of malfeasance and embezzlement in office and ergo sentenced by the Courts of our land. True democracy in Pakistan shall only prevail at the grass roots level, when our country has become successful in ensuring open and fair elections within its political parties. Parties would thus become established institutions in their own right and thereby having nothing to do with the so called ‘cult of the (selected) leader.’ Only then shall we have a truly elected government “of the people, by the people and for the people.” History should be our teacher in ensuring that the mistake of Emperor Marcus Aurelius is never repeated. The writer is a freelance columnist