Are family dynasties in political parties a hidden form of kingdom rule in modern democracies? This is a long-standing issue in Pakistan

[FearlessRoar]

I’ve been wondering about the influence of family dynasties in modern democracies. We often think of democracy as something that thrives on diversity, change, and merit-based leadership. But in some countries, politics seems deeply intertwined with family lineage—almost like a subtle version of monarchy.

Take the United States, for example. You have two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, each promoting a structure where leaders emerge from their individual achievements rather than family backgrounds. Leaders like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump all rose to prominence through personal political journeys, without dynastic support. In this system, it’s clear that the focus is more on individual merit than family connections.

But then, there’s Pakistan, where political dynasties play a major role. The Bhutto family with the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Sharif family with the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) have long-held influences within their parties. This makes me question whether these parties truly represent democratic values. In some ways, it feels as though family ties might be overshadowing the voices of other potential leaders. Isn’t this a bit like a hidden monarchy, where power stays within a few families, even though the nation is technically democratic?

India has a similar story with the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress Party. It’s interesting because this setup in both India and Pakistan doesn’t align with the core idea of democracy—that leadership should represent the people and not just a family legacy. It’s puzzling because, in a time where monarchies are fading, this family-centered model almost feels outdated, especially when democratic values are about promoting equality and opportunity for all.

So, is this trend in places like Pakistan and India just a cultural preference, or does it reveal a deeper reluctance to let go of older forms of power? It’s like these parties are blending democracy with the remnants of monarchy, creating a system that doesn’t fully fit either model. This raises a broader question: Can a democracy truly flourish when leadership is limited by family legacy?

 

[sweep_shot]

Family dynasty is bad for any country. It causes mess in the long run.

A leader should be elected based on qualities and not based on family ties.

 

[RidiculousMan]

I'm just tired of seeing these parties and people's faces in the country. If I have the power I'm using it. Red Wedding style

 

[KB]

I’ve been wondering about the influence of family dynasties in modern democracies. We often think of democracy as something that thrives on diversity, change, and merit-based leadership. But in some countries, politics seems deeply intertwined with family lineage—almost like a subtle version of monarchy.

Take the United States, for example. You have two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, each promoting a structure where leaders emerge from their individual achievements rather than family backgrounds. Leaders like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump all rose to prominence through personal political journeys, without dynastic support. In this system, it’s clear that the focus is more on individual merit than family connections.

But then, there’s Pakistan, where political dynasties play a major role. The Bhutto family with the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Sharif family with the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) have long-held influences within their parties. This makes me question whether these parties truly represent democratic values. In some ways, it feels as though family ties might be overshadowing the voices of other potential leaders. Isn’t this a bit like a hidden monarchy, where power stays within a few families, even though the nation is technically democratic?

India has a similar story with the Nehru-Gandhi family in the Congress Party. It’s interesting because this setup in both India and Pakistan doesn’t align with the core idea of democracy—that leadership should represent the people and not just a family legacy. It’s puzzling because, in a time where monarchies are fading, this family-centered model almost feels outdated, especially when democratic values are about promoting equality and opportunity for all.

So, is this trend in places like Pakistan and India just a cultural preference, or does it reveal a deeper reluctance to let go of older forms of power? It’s like these parties are blending democracy with the remnants of monarchy, creating a system that doesn’t fully fit either model. This raises a broader question: Can a democracy truly flourish when leadership is limited by family legacy?

Reading this post reminded me of an article by Owen Bennett-Jones - who was once BBC’s correspondent in Pakistan. Reflecting on his interactions with Benazir Bhutto, following her death, he began his piece with the following:

It must be eight years ago now - in the cavernous hall of Benazir Bhutto's ancestral home in Larkana, Sindh, southern Pakistan - her political base, her vote bank.

We had had dinner - 40 people or so around her huge dining table - and then she had moved into a larger, more public room.

It was late, but it was packed.

She sat in a big upright chair - on a dais as I remember, a throne really - and standing in a semi- circle were her former cabinet ministers and others - courtiers really - to whom she had given plum postings when she had been prime minister - ambassadorships or sinecures within Pakistan.

In conspiratorial whispers they gossiped and schemed: they tried to catch her attention, or if they were out of favour, to avoid it.

Some tried to interest her with a bit of news from Islamabad or Lahore - who is pleasing her, they all worried, and how are they doing it.

I remember thinking: any historian studying the court of Elizabeth I should get down here immediately - this surely is how it was.

Think, too, of what happened after her death. She was entombed in “a mighty three-domed white marble structure” (https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2016/6/21/garhi-khuda-bakhsh-where-the-bhuttos-are-laid-to-rest) that she had built for her father. Pilgrims who visit her shrine see her as a “martyred queen.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...r-martyred-queen-benazir-bhutto-flna1c7799754)

There is, I think, a cultural dimension here. As historian David Gilmartin argued, British rule rested on a conception of sovereignty based on a transcendent and abstract ideal of the rule of law and reason. It was a more impersonal idea of sovereignty.

We might contrast this with the cultural underpinnings of Mughal political authority. As historian Azfar Moin has shown, while of course the foundations of Mughal rule rested partly on its intricate bureaucracy as well as on its ability mobilise force, there was also a more ‘enchanted’ vision which legitimised the Mughal rulers’ claim to power. There was a widespread belief - not limited to Mughal India - in the existence of unseen cosmic forces emerging from hidden realms that shaped life on earth and could be influenced through the miraculous powers and esoteric knowledge of Sufis and Kings. The Mughal king was, therefore, viewed not only as a “political leader” dealing with day to day worldly matters, but a “spiritual chief” sustaining cosmic order, the “king of kings and the saint of saints.”

Authority and power, rather than being transcendent, abstract and impersonal, was thus projected to be embodied concretely in extraordinary individuals. This idea of an immanent sovereignty linked to special individuals and ‘charismatic’ genealogy, it might be argued, has not altogether disappeared from the Indian subcontinent and is reflected to some degree in the persistence of dynastic politics.

But focussing on cultural continuities is not enough. There is also a more prosaic political dimension.

Here it is worth recalling that dynastic politics extends well beyond party leaders. According to the work of Pakistani academics, Ali Cheema, Hassan Javid and Muhammad Farooq Naseer, 53% of the National Assembly seats from the Punjab belonged to dynastic families in the 2008 elections. This remarkable number is consistent with elections going back to at least 1985, for which data was collected. By way of comparison, they point out that 29% of the members of the Indian Lok Sabha in the 2010 elections were dynastic. In the US, the dynastic legislators in the Congress between 1966-96 was 6%.

A key factor in the reliance on dynastic figures in Pakistan, is the feebleness of political parties as institutions. On the local level party infrastructure remains weak. Hence the reliance on local ‘electables’ rather than on doing the much harder work of institutionalising popular enthusiasm and support by building firm organisational foundations stretching all the way to the local level. Weak party machines with decision making highly centralised and authority flowing less from formal party structures than a party leaders have characterised Pakistani political parties.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Not in favor of dynastic politics at all anywhere around the world. In politics if you are talented enough, you would make your room anyway no matter what the background