Politics of ‘nepo-babies’…Maleeha Lodhi
PAKISTAN’S politics is still dominated by dynasties and family networks that manage to retain their grip over the country’s top political offices and a significant number of seats in parliament.
Many lawmakers come from political dynasties and have inherited seats from their parent, spouse or other familial connections. Hereditary politics continues to hold sway, with power distributed among relatives by those who secure high office. The mould of dynastic politics was broken by the rise of PTI, but while its leader was not a dynast, the party included scions of influential political families.
Pakistan is no exception to a phenomenon witnessed across the world — of political families and dynasties dominating the political landscape. What are called political ‘nepo-babies’ are prominent almost everywhere. A political nepo-baby is generally defined as a beneficiary of nepotism — the offspring of someone who achieved high political office and ascends to power by virtue of that. The phenomenon also includes spouses or siblings who succeed in politics due to family connections.
Many countries in Southeast Asia are governed by nepo-babies. Paetongtarn Shinawatra in Thailand, Bongbong Marcos in the Philippines, Hun Manet in Cambodia and Kim Jong Un in North Korea are all children of former rulers who now run their countries. Similarly, Indonesia’s vice president Gibran Rakabuming Raka is the son of former president Joko Widodo. Singapore was ruled for two decades by Lee Hsien Loong, son of Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s founder and first prime minister.
In South Asia, the recently ousted prime minister of Bangladesh, Hasina Wajid owed her political ascent to her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. In India, three prime ministers came from the Nehru-Gandhi family; its scion Rahul Gandhi is now leader of the opposition. Latin America too has had its share of political families. Argentina has seen the Peróns and Kirchners. Former Uruguay president Jorge Luis Batlle came from a family of three presidents. Honduran President Xiomara Castro de Zelaya is the spouse of an ex-president.
Political dynasties have also been a familiar phenomenon in the West. The Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons are prominent examples in the US. Then there is Justin Trudeau in Canada. In Europe, Estonia’s premier is the daughter of a former prime minister. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo and Marine Le Pen in France had politically famous parents.
The track record of nepo-babies has varied. Some have governed well, others not so. But there is no disagreement that however ‘qualified’ they may be, it is their family name that helped them attain power. Their privileged background gives them an advantage that runs counter to the very notion of a meritocracy. When the political playing field is skewed by their privileged DNA and offers unequal access to other political aspirants that doesn’t make political competition fair or equitable. This has adverse implications for democracy.
A study of ‘Hereditary democracy’ by an Australian scholar Dr James Loxton emphasised its harmful impact on the political system. It found that mediocre leaders are more likely to rise to power when political office is limited to those with family connections in politics. In some cases, they even lack formal qualifications. Voters are also let down because when they elect relatives of famous politicians, they usually assume and expect similarities in leadership qualities or policies.
However, elected progeny or relatives may differ substantially from their predecessors, leading to dashed voter expectations and poor representation. An article published earlier this year in The Economist subtitled ‘Damaging dynasties’, argued that in several Asian countries, dynasts impeded economic growth because their interests and those of their cronies collided with the need for reform. Moreover, dynastic rule inhibits the building of strong institutions as personalities assume an outsized role and seek to dominate institutions, showing impatience with institutional checks on their power. They also prevent institutionalisation of their own political parties.
Why people vote for nepo-babies is an important question but has no uniform answer as political contexts and conditions vary from country to country. Generally speaking, name recognition and people’s familiarity with a well-known personality are important reasons for their support. As also their perception that the parent or relative of the political leader had earlier lived up to their expectations and his/her heir would bring stability. Dynastic leaders are also more prevalent in developing countries which have a political culture where politics is organised around patron-client networks and patronage oils the working of the political system.
While every country with ruling dynasties has specific features, Pakistan’s case is different from others in an important respect. As political interventions by the military have been pervasive throughout Pakistan’s history, it has often chosen to ally with one or the other political dynasty to counter a common political foe.
This has helped to shore up their position and revive their political fortunes even when public support for them has waned. They have also been vehicles to preserve the status quo. The two major political parties headed by dynasties are today favoured and bolstered by the establishment, as they serve as a counterpoise to Imran Khan’s PTI.
The two dynasty-led parties, PML-N and PPP have alternated in power for over four decades (when the military hasn’t assumed overt power). An assessment of how they governed has to be undertaken separately. Noteworthy here is that while the country has moved on, politics is still stuck in the old hereditary mode. Representative politics and the governance system are increasingly misaligned with the social and economic changes that have been reshaping the country’s landscape. These changes include greater urbanisation, shift in economic power from the countryside to the cities, expansion of a more assertive middle class, emergence of a diverse civil society and a more ‘connected’ and informed citizenry, thanks to the spread of technology.
These changes are creating different public expectations and aspirations. The growing middle class wants to see a meritocratic political system free from domination by dynasties that are seen to represent the past, not the future. The key question is whether this growing mismatch between the demands of a rising middle class and family or clan-dominated politics can unleash dynamics that ultimately yield more competent and accountable governance.
courtesy 