While western dynastic politicians downplay their lineage out of fear of losing voters, the illustrious children of Pakistani politicians actively bank on it. Occurrences such as the youngest Bhutto losing two out of three seats in the 2018 elections have shown that political dynasties are (very) gradually being turned away at a constituency level.
But this rejection hardly makes a dent in the influence a boy-prince may enjoy at a national level, because of a birth-right that never stops giving; inheritance of a political party.
Let there be no doubt about it; anyone who thinks Pakistan will progress greatly under the children of two families is heavily mistaken. But the sort of political dynasties that need to be fervently resisted against, must first be identified.
There are two kinds of dynastic politics in Pakistan.
First, dynasts who inherit leadership of a political party, and second, local dynasts who contest elections from a seat
that a relative was
elected from (key word: elected). But much like great fortunes and much unlike dynastic parties, rarely does a seat in the Assembly survive a third generation.
It’s certainly easier to win a seat formerly won by one’s father; the son of an electable does not just inherit wealth, but also a party ticket, personal connections, and the unwavering loyalty of voters belonging to a sizeable local caste. Regardless, a dynast of this sort is still not worth much without democracy’s most prized feature: the vote of the people. A local dynast’s constituents can simply vote him out if they do not like his or her ways; a luxury that is not afforded to voters when it comes to party leadership.
However, it is immaterial if the argument of voting to depose local dynasts is not convincing enough for the reader of this column, because local dynasts are here to stay – contesting, if not winning. It’s simply not possible to impose a restriction by law on contesting elections if a relative was formerly in the Assembly; to do so would be as undemocratic as Pervez Musharraf’s degree requirement, which was one of the few things illegal enough to be struck down by Musharraf’s own man in the Supreme Court.
Political dynasties become a national problem when children of a few families begin to control which other families get to continue their mini-dynasties, (distributing party tickets), because that means they are leaders of a party that was passed down to them without democratic means.
The situation is best described by Asad Rahim Khan, “So it was that Lord Hamza became chief minister, as his father before him, as his uncle before his father, and as his son and grandson will after him.”
To oppose local dynasts instead of their overlords in the party would amount to wasting energy against an unavoidable byproduct of a nascent democracy.
If it is morally reprehensible for sons and daughters to inherit an attempt – and only an attempt - at the unnerving profession of constituency politics, the same rule must apply to inheriting private companies. Surely that is flawed logic, and neither is morally reprehensible.
Why do party leaders choose blood over all else when placing parliamentarians in key offices? To simply win in parliament. As hard as it already is to physically command a majority in parliament despite having the numbers on paper (you need buses and hotels now), it gets much harder when the parliamentarian in question is anyone but the party leader. Intra-party competition and local rivalries will always trump party loyalty.
Still, it’s a weak excuse to not extend power beyond family, especially post the Supreme Court’s equally weak judgment that does not count defecting votes.
To differentiate between dynasties, of course, is only a temporary solace so that our criticism may be focused towards deserving quarters.
Electoral reforms for political parties are the need of the hour, following which political dynasties of all sorts will take care of themselves. Inspiration may be taken from how the Conservative Party will replace former PM Boris Johnson. The nomination of at least 20 MPs must be won by each candidate, followed by consecutive rounds of voting by party MPs until only two remain.
These two will then fight it out to win the vote of about 180,000 party members. Almost a process as tiresome as the general election itself takes place in the U.K to ensure a Prime Minister candidate is worthy of the high office he or she shall hold.
Pakistan has a long way to go in matching the U.K’s democracy, but it is paramount to develop a system to get rid of families commanding political parties.
Needless to say, such reforms are unlikely to be brought by political parties that benefit from dynastic politics. Whether dynastic politicians are better suited for the country, as some claim, is a debate for another column (they aren’t.). —Sairam Hussain Miran, a Law student at LUMS.