The disenfranchisement with a political landscape rife with nepotism is leading to the succession of ‘alternative’ candidates
In February 2017, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticised the Indian National Congress for suggesting that “only a family has given us freedom”. It is a sad but accurate reflection for the problems of political dynasties. Political dynasties have emerged around the world, with powerful families ruling countries for decades and often staying in power just because of the legacy of their name.
In India, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty was in power for the large majority of time, from independence in 1947 until 2014. As a result, the Nehru-Gandhi family has been ruling India for much of its 70 years as an independent country. While in the past this has not been a problem, the legacy has now come back to haunt them. Heir to the dynasty, Rahul Gandhi, lacks the popularity and skill of his predecessors and is plagued by the perception that he is only in his position because of his name. As a result, Congress were soundly beaten by the ruling Bharata Janata Party (BJP) in the 2014 general elections and have continued to struggle since. The 2017 state elections in Uttar Pradesh (UP) – historically a stronghold for Congress – saw the BJP sweep to victory, despite the BJP government being plagued by controversy. Modi is a divisive figure due to his Hindu nationalist background and murky history as Chief Minister of Gujarat. His decision to withdraw the 500 and 1000 rupee note from circulation to tackle corruption, known as demonetisation, caused short-term chaos in the country.
Yet the BJP have just won the biggest majority in the state since 1980. They now control 13 out of 29 state legislatures, with Congress only controlling 6. There are many factors behind these results, but it is clear that the weakness of the opposition is one of them. Congress under Rahul is unpopular and the Gandhi name is now associated with corruption and nepotism. Furthermore, the only response Congress seems to have is to replace Rahul with his sister Priyanka Gandhi. While she is perceived as a much better political figure than her brother, the move reeks of bias and is hardly going to solve Congress’ problems.
There is a similar issue with Pakistan. The Bhutto family has been a prominent player in the country for decades since the 1970s. They have had controversial times in power, being plagued by corruption repeatedly. The fact that the family continues to be elected to positions of authority despite their contentious history raises questions about how much the power of legacy overrides due process in government. The appointment of Bilawal Bhutto as party head, seemingly just because of his name, also exudes nepotism. Like Rahul Gandhi in India, Bilawal has yet to prove he has the skills to be a successful political leader.
In both India and Pakistan, families with political dynasties have led to the creation of pseudo-monarchies. In the early years of independence, this probably allowed the most skilled politicians to be in power and gave the necessary stability for newly formed countries. However, as their time in power continues, it tends to lead to immovable authoritarian forms of government. For example, Indira Gandhi ran a period of effective dictatorship in the ‘Emergency’ period of 1975-77 where she ruled India by executive orders. Yet she was still re-elected in 1980, suggesting the power of the name was enough to persuade the population to overlook her past. Similarly her son, Rajiv Gandhi, leaned on the foundation of his family’s legacy when he sent peacekeeping troops into Sri Lanka in 1987 in an effort to end the civil war, consequently leading to conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The fact that both Indira and Rajiv were forcefully removed from positions of authority via assassination (in 1984 and 1991 respectively) shows how firmly entrenched in their position that they were. Furthermore, in both cases, rather than holding an election and continuing the democratic process, another Gandhi succeeded them with little to no scrutiny. It was the same case in Pakistan following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in 2007. Ultimately, in both countries, a figure has been democratically elected into power and their families have then exploited that popular legitimacy to keep a tight grip on that power, restrict opposition, and utilise their positions to extend their reach far beyond their democratic mandate. There seems to be little difference between these political families and monarchies.
Predictably, 70 years later, as these families remain in or close to power, their continued presence has created an air of elitism and alienated the population who used to support them in droves – particularly when the parties select weak figureheads. This has had the unintended consequences of other, clearly unsuitable, figures being elected in their place largely because they are ‘the other choice’.
In India, the BJP under Modi have seen increasing success under former Congress voters fed up with the legacy rulers. The fact that even some Muslims are voting for a Hindu nationalist government which is so explicitly hostile to them – as what happened in 2014 and in UP this year – provides evidence for the dangers of the long-term consequences of political dynasties. There are multiple reasons behind the BJP’s success. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that the ‘anyone but Congress and Gandhi’ effect is powerful. On a side note, it is interesting to note that this is exactly the situation that Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League were warning about in the run up to independence and Partition in 1947. The main motivation behind the creation of Pakistan was to create a country where the Indian Muslims would not be dominated over and persecuted by the majority Hindu population. The fact that the persecution of Muslims is growing in India raises new questions over Partition. Was the whole process worth it, or did it even go far enough to protect the minority Muslim population?
In Pakistan, the 2013 elections saw the election and return to power of Nawaz Sharif, who was prime minister in the 1990s. He was re-elected even after a poor record in power – dogged by corruption, clashes with the military and a disastrous Kargil War with India in 1999. The fact that he has returned to power not only suggests futility in Pakistani democracy but also that the population would choose any one other than the Bhuttos. The continued meagre governance of the Bhuttos caused the people of Pakistan to go for the nuclear option of anyone but them and elect Sharif, despite his record being arguably just as bad or worse.
The power of ‘the other choice’ is therefore clear. It is what caused people like Modi and Sharif to be elected – two figures who would be lucky to gain even 1 per cent of the vote in any decent western democracy. It is what led to Donald Trump’s election in the USA and is the reason Marine Le Pen may be elected in France.
It is clear that ‘political power’ families are creating issues the world over. In addition to the examples outlined above, there are cases in countries such as Bangladesh, Cuba, Kenya and Nicaragua where power is being handed down within the family rather than being redistributed by the citizenry through elections. This has created conflicts of interest, corruption, nepotism and, in some cases, a halt in progress. The world used to be ruled by monarchies who claimed to have the divine right to rule. Now, democracy is being exploited to create dynasties of an ultimately different kind – but which are leading to the same results.
Image from: NDTV