The Case Against Political Dynasties in Pakistan
What do you do when political leadership is allocated on the basis of your blood rather than your capabilities and leadership? When who your mother or grandfather was becomes more important than how well you can serve interests of the Pakistani people? Is this not reminiscent of the age of empires wherein the wishes of the majority were subjugated to the decisions of the ‘holy emperor’ or the ‘royal bloodline’? Have we really moved on in history from suffering at the hands of dictators to suffering at the hands of a few ‘democratically-elected’ feudal lords?
In a country like Pakistan that has had a tumultuous democracy since its inception and a largely uneducated society, it is not surprising to see a political vacuum emerging wherein the elite in society begin to play a bigger role in the country’s future. But when we see these families benefiting at the expense of the masses, one wonders whether there is a lesson to be learnt for young democracies to follow to prevent this from happening. More importantly, are there lessons for us to learn to ensure that future generations do not suffer at the hands of the same bloodline over and over and over again? When I see history repeating itself from one generation to another, I ask whether there’s a case to be made for laws that bans political lineage, or two members from the same family to occupy the political scene?
Thankfully, something similar to this law has been shaping up in the world. The anti-political dynasty provision that was heavily debated in Philippines allows for ‘only one to two people from the same family who are related up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether such relations are legitimate or illegitimate, half or full-blood, to run in a given election, provided that one is running for a national position and the other for a local position. Furthermore, no person related to an incumbent official from the same family as defined would be allowed to run in the same position to succeed the relative’.
In the Pakistani case, the interests of a few deeply-entrenched families have massively overshadowed the interests of the masses. The Bhutto family, a case in point, perhaps is one of the most well-known families in Pakistan that has had a considerable influence on Pakistani politics at least from the time Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto joined the Ayub Khan government in the 1960s. With a lack of relatively strong democratic institutions in place, is it then a surprise that roughly 60 years later his grandson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is at the helm of one of Pakistan’s most prominent political parties. Prior to that it was his father, Asif Ali Zardari, and prior to that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, PPP chairperson-for-life Benazir Bhutto. One would be able to draw a similar trajectory for the Sharif family and for most other politicians in the country, where the masses suffer at the privilege of a few predominant families.
Having an anti-political dynasty provision will allow us to slowly but surely decrease the influence that these families exert on the political scene. It may not solve all our problems, but it could surely be a start.
