|
Maleeha Lodhi
DAWN/04 November 2024
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.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, November 4th, 2024
Mohammad Ali Babakhel
DAWN/ 05 november 2024
FOLLOWING 9/11, the ashes of the World Trade Centre in New York ignited fires in different parts of the world. Even now, 23 years later, those fires are proving difficult to extinguish. The so-called War on Terror (WoT), much like the Cold War, has been an expansive war, which has directly or indirectly affected almost every nation. It would, therefore, be of interest to examine their similarities and differences.
The term ‘Cold War’ was first used by George Orwell, the nom de plume of Eric Arthur Blair, in an article in 1945. The war itself commenced with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The WoT started about 10 years later, in 2001. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021 was celebrated as the end of the WoT. However, post-withdrawal developments proved that the WoT had merely entered a new phase. The US may have physically withdrawn from the theatre, but its strategic interests remained intact. Even today, the great powers and major terrorist groups do not know when the WoT will end.
While the Cold War was between two blocs, with other states taking a side, the ongoing WoT was supposed to be between nation-states and violent non-state actors. In reality, some states did provide space, finances, and ideological and diplomatic support to violent non-state actors; otherwise, it would be difficult for the latter to survive.
Therefore, though terrorist groups were also active during the Cold War, the post-9/11 era saw a mushroom growth in their numbers. Al Qaeda was established much before the WoT, but it spawned and inspired a number of extremist groups thereafter. The WoT not only impacted the sovereignty of states but also the territorial integrity of a few. Countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan faced instability and were confronted with civil war-like situations.
The Cold War and ‘War on Terror’ both influenced international relations.
The Cold War was primarily an ideological confrontation between capitalism and communism; the WoT was about combating terrorism based on a struggle against extremist ideologies. The Cold War and WoT both influenced international relations, with alliances shaping geopolitics. The Cold War saw Soviet expansion, with the capitalist bloc trying to contain it. For some analysts, the Cold War was a smokescreen for the US to influence and control events in Western Europe and Japan. On the other hand, the WoT remained largely focused on specific regions, particularly in the Middle East. The Cold War spawned a nuclear race and indirect military engagements, while the WoT saw direct and prolonged military engagements, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To recognise its strategic partners in 1987, the US designated Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA) status to various countries.
MNNAs are not members of Nato but are entitled to certain benefits in military cooperation. Out of the 20 countries with MNNA status, eight received it before 9/11, while 12 countries obtained this status in the post-9/11 era. This highlights how the US grew its military influence around the world following the WoT.
The WoT is not restricted to national borders and involves many countries and international coalitions. The WoT often involves state actors combating non-state actors and has therefore influenced security legislation and policies such as the US’s Patriot Act, which extended surveillance and law-enforcement powers within the world’s most powerful nation as well. The WoT also brought with it human rights concerns, especially about torture, detentions (for example, Guantánamo Bay) and targeted killings via drones.
During the initial phase of the WoT, religious extremism, ethnic divides, and political marginalisat-ion further comp-licated the militancy landscape. The WoT gained impetus from globalisation, technological innovations, the openness of media and the strength of social media, which triggered rights and peace movements on the one hand, while enabling the speedy dissemination of hate material and fake news on the other.
States with weak economies cannot completely isolate themselves as either parties or victims of violent conflicts. The survival and effectiveness of states require a greater focus on countering violent narratives, which is not possible without investing in social empowerment and improving public service delivery.
Terrorism is a transnational phenomenon. There is a need for an increased realisation that terrorism and conflicts benefit only a few powerful entities, while the rest pay the costs. For powerful states and violent non-state actors, terrorism is a commercial enterprise and a source of power, pleasure, and profit. The truth is that sole reliance on military might is not an antidote.
The writer is the author of Pakistan: In Between Extremism and Peace.
X: @alibabakhel
Published in Dawn, November 5th, 2024 |
