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 Asiain 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 familes 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.
Email This Article - News - Video
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Well written article and I would say all of it is true, But (I know there is always a but), in stead of blaming it on BB or ZAB, this question should be posed to Aitezaz Ahsan, Babar Awan, Sherry Rahman, Amin Faheem and likes in Central execuvtive commitee or Federal Executive committee of PPP. It was a will, which is more like Wish. These guys knew thats the only way to get political mileage from BB’s assassination.
May be BB was a powerful leader, and these dwarfs still unable to grow b@lls. May be government is just hoping that these guys will in another month and half.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Well said. This is a black mark on all of us. If Bilawal Zardari really represents “new” thinking and not just a continuation of the feudal status quo, he will step down, organize a party convention and run for election for party office.
Willing party offices based on blood line is undemocratic plain and simple.
And no, I am not overlooking the crap that every other party does in pakistan. I just hold PPP to a higher standard, because it should be.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Leave it to people of Pakistan. If they are happy to bring this party in power, it is fine.
Who are dictators’ lovers to tell us that PPP is feudal or not.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It must have been a great psychological victory for Zardari when he whipped out the “Will” and bulldozed his way through. Nobody in the brass at that moment had the guts to be a “show spoiler” and be considered to have no “feeling” for Benazir. Also each was comfortable with the notion that no one else stood up. If only one had objected and promoted him or her self then there would have been a squabble. Nothing reasonable would have followed as we as a nation don’t have the skills to rationally resolve critical issues under a highly emotionally and explosive atmosphere. So I think what happened by default may have been best for the part for now. However congrats to Zardari for pulling this one.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Good analysis…
Ibn batuta
January 5th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Insightful analysis which correctly makes an often overlooked comparison.
Whereas econfused is right that other PP ’stalwarts’ should be blamed for this succession, it also highlights the point how undemocratic BB was despite her protestations to bring about democracy in the country. A real democrat would have left a legacy to make the party democratic rather than leave all to her discredited (in most unbiased eyes) husband.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
@answers70
Well, in reality she knew no body has the guts to lead the party. Her 8 years exile has proved that much. I mean she doesn’t have an army like Mush to impose the will.
Now Govt i s hoping that either cracks will appear in PPP or ISI will be able to find some real dirt. BTW does any body know why Zardari flew to Dubai?
January 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Of course to re-initaite negotiations with the Super Power and to assure to be more loyal than the Queen.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
And of course to take care of some very personal matters…like handling all the inheritance and insurance matters. Its not everyday that you get shiploads of money.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Two great shocks within last 10 days. First murder of BB and second appointment of Zardari as defacto chair person of PPP. I think Amin Fahim or Aitezaz Hassan could have done much better for PPP. Appinting Zardari as chairperson for PPP, with strong possiblity of PPP winning polls and Zardari being the man in control of affairs of Pakistan (though might not PM) is like ” Billi ko dhood ki rakhwali key liya rakna).
January 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Salam to all;
Its surprising many are criticising Zardari for corruption charges which are yet to prove. Let me clear first that I am no supporter of PPP, neither I will vote for them despite BBs assesination. Zardari spent 8 years in prison and yet any charge is to be proved. Once I told a PPP worker that BBs biggest mistake was to merry Zardari, but his answer surprised me when he said BBs best decision in her life was to merry bcaz he suffered alot of miseries at the hands of agencies but never agreed to their demands of either divorsing BB or becoming witness against her. There were many more such stories you will come across if you start sitting with jialas. Another case in point is the recently deliberate and well organised propaganda against Zardari that he might be involved BBs assasination, after everybody starting raising fingers to Musharraf and intelligence agencies of Army. Dont you people think that such are the dirty tactics used by ISI and its associated agencies to defame politiicians to save their and their masters’ skin since long. Case in point here is their current boss Mushi…………….
I might be/ might not be wrong…….
January 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
@aa254
I don’t think you are wrong. He may be corrupt, but stood by family. For the record, not a PPP voter.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Bhutto family is not a dynasty. This is an open field.
Are you willing to become a Bhutto? Then be ready to get murdered. Those who love their life, have Q league to join.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:49 am
@Optimist
“Leave it to people of Pakistan. If they are happy to bring this party in power, it is fine.
Who are dictators’ lovers to tell us that PPP is feudal or not.”
How silly .. Do not get so blind in support of your party that when it comes to question of democracy in your party, your response is that it’s fine what so ever.
As far as people of Pakistan, what choice those poor people have. In the name of democracy everyone is fooling them from last 60 years.
Parties will never care about democracy because they can always find people like you whole will give an ill logic to legitimize their undemocratic behavior
@econfused
“Well, in reality she knew no body has the guts to lead the party.”
So she thought that since no has has guts, it’s fine to distribute the leadership in her own family. She was leading gutless people from last 20 years. These gutless people were praising here day and night, many of them even went to jail.
very nice .. man you always surprise me… Why don’t you just simply write. I support x, y, & z and I like them, despite whatever the hell is wrong them
January 6th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Brilliant !!! Quite an analysis… Thank you for putting it in a broader perspective. Have you considered sending to NYTimes OP-ED or even the State Department?
January 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I agree that AA or A Fahim should be in the driving seat. What the hell this dubiouos man R Malik is doing???? He seems to be like the peron who can do every thing for money…… Unfortunately we can never have democracy in Pakistan as all the leading parties Like PPP, PML(N) and other parties . If they cannot have democracy in their own party how can you expect that they can listen to the peopl once in power? Even we cry, scream for BB but she was also the same. The slogan is good but when it comes to implementing she was also like every other politician.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Dear Gul,
You make a good case but you are making out the American political system to be some system that is totally judged on merit when in fact the electoral system is heavily flawed. Hilary Clinton may be having to “prove” herself but a few months ago she was considered the unequivocal nominee of the Democratic Party because she was Bill Clinton’s wife, her credentials notwithstanding. Had she been someone else’s spouse, say the spouse of Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine no one would have given her a second glance. She has had it easy because of who she is married to. There is no doubt that she considers or rather considered until a few months ago that the Democratic nomination was hers by right. Secondly, George W. Bush became the heir apparent to his father George Herbert Walker Bush not because he is smart or possesses the credentials, but simply cos his family has been engaged in politics since time immemorial. And now that mantle is being passed onto George Prescott Bush, Jeb Bush’s son, to take it to the next level. There may be a bit of merit (and I say that cringing), but in the US as in Pakistan your family connections and money actually drives your election to a post. I agree that Bilawal Bhutto is far from ready to take on this post and should never have been appointed to be the torch bearer for the Bhuttos, but using your argument one can make the case that Benazir Bhutto was singularly qualified to take on her father’s mantle when she came in 1986, given her trial by fire. She came and campaigned like any other and was eventually elected prime minister.
Keep up the writing. How about something on the unravelling of Musharraf now?
Cheers,
theamenableone
January 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
@sigbal00
I am glad I am still able to surprise you. If you think PPP leaders has the courage, what is stopping them to come out and speak against Zardari. I support stance of anybody who is against Army rule be it PPP or PML-N, PTI or anybody else.
You know we cannot have angels to lead Pakistan. I have been saying with the LIMITED choices available, I will pick lesser evil. I know you do not want to pick any kind of evil and I respect that. May be I am not on that level of honesty where you are at the moment. May be I still have hope for my country.
You have to say which is “No evil” viable option available at the moment, I am more than willing to change my stance.
January 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
There is being a very strong reaction among PPP workers and leaders in Punjab against the election of Zardari as Co Chairman. They dont dispute Bilwal but certainly they dont want Zardari because his reputation is very bad and it seems teh party is becoming more like a Sindhi party now and even in Sindh, the elevation of Zardari as Co Chairman has not been welcomed.
Some people are even purpoting a conspiracy theory that maybe Zardari and Rehman Malik have a hand in this and some even say that because Sherry Rehman and Naheed Khan were there in the vehicle - maybe they might have done it
Russian intelligence agencies report that there were three people involved in this murder.
Only Allah knows the best
January 6th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Zardari has left for Dubai although he had claimed that he would remain here until Chelum. He has gone there to make sure all her property is transferred to his name.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:14 am
@econfused
“You have to say which is “No evil
January 7th, 2008 at 2:20 am
@C Hussain
This theory (rehman& zardari nexus) is getting stronger by the day. GOD knows who has the motives behind it. Clearly zardari is in position to gain most out of this tragedy
Both have the reputation to do anything for money .. Rehman’s statement is highly skeptical which he gave after BB’s assassination
What you expect from the guy who was head of FIA and broke all records .. i doubt even zardari can match him
January 7th, 2008 at 2:21 am
@siqbal00
Aitezaz Ahsan and lawyers movement is now waiting for elections. My support is unconditional for them, “no ifs and buts”
The option has to be out in the open. The alternative solution has to come out. Right now even the alternative solution is waiting on the sidelines.
At any given time, strategy should be multi-pronged, you cannot put all eggs in one basket. One strategy is support the forces who are against Army rule. The second and long term strategy is work with civil societies movement.
January 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
It’s interesting that all the PPP decisions took place in Naudero where no one would DARE speak against Zirdari’s coronation. Even the media that was present shyed from asking hard hitting questions because I’m sure they all wanted to make it home alive.
The Bhuttos have never let the PPP emerge into a democratic force. Charimanships for life and questionable wills and annointments are a far cry from being democratic. Also I’m wondering why BB didn’t support the CJ and AA just a litle more whole heartedly…..could it b because they were ACTUALLY emerging as popular authentic leaders for people and not just some feudal pin up?
January 15th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Dear Gul,
Great analysis. Pakistans political system must not be compared with the western world, dynastic or not. After BB, the party needs a Bhutto. Rural vote bank is Bhutto’s, not PPP’s. Establishment is aware of it. They had been dealing with BB not PPP. Its difficult to comprehend that a teenager who has hardly spent few years of his life in Pakistan, probably has very few (or no) Pakistani friends, perhaps has never felt for the miseries of a common Pakistani, is required to lead the party with the slogan of “Roti, Kapra aur Makan”. Does he understand the “meaning” of these three words? This is the dilemma of Pakistani nation.
January 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Ayesha!
You are right that, “After BB, the party needs a Bhutto, and that, ” This is the dilemma of Pakistani nation”.
Its always the government of the Bhuttos, by the Bhuttos and for the Bhuttos.
Long live dynastic rule.