South Asian nations paying heavily for dynastic leadership....

[Pksecurity]

The countries of Indian sub-continent, commonly known as South Asia, are plagued by the the curse of dynastic leadership thrown up through inheritance or kinship. This criterion known as pure pedigree to identify the breed of horses and dogs for their selection in the rest of the world is used to choose political leaders in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Dynastic politics is exclusive where right of leadership is a divine right of the heir alone. On the other hand, democratic traditions are inclusive where anyone having the support of majority can become a political leader.
According to Wikipedia, a dynasty is a job passed down from generation to generation and has been associated with monarchy and defined patrilineally. Kinship and inheritance were predominantly viewed and legally calculated through descent from a common ancestor in the male line. However, men descended from a dynasty through females have sometimes adopted the name of that dynasty while claiming its position or inheritance. The dynasties, except those existing symbolically like the British Monarchy, have totally vanished from the civilized world due to onset of democratic process.
The dynastic leadership, however, still reigns in parts of the world like Saudi Arabia and Gulf where democracy has not so far been allowed to take roots. The South Asian region is, however, unique in the sense that in the countries in this region, even the political leadership is passed on in hereditary fashion. The leadership is monopolized for one or two families who do not allow the democracy to take roots in order that they have a free hand to appropriate to themselves the right to rule and plunder the national resources to further their political interests in a royal manner.
The case of Pakistan is even more interesting. It has a history of having intermittent military regimes, the political leadership having been assumed by the leaders of military and snatched from the political royals. None of the military dictators belonged to any elite political house; they were from middle class families of humble background. They had reached the top military positions on merit as the system of military promotions does not recognize bloodline as a route to career progression. These dictators were not chosen by people yet they were from amongst the masses. Interestingly, common man was more prosperous, secure and happy during the dictatorial regime. The only class which claims victimhood during these regimes were political royals who were deprived of the privilege of promoting their family interests at the cost of national interests.
Four of Pakistan’s major political parties have lined up cushy jobs and safe parliamentary seats for the scions of their leaders, a sign that the country’s political dynasties remain strong. According to a report carried by The National, the rise of young leaders from old platforms comes ahead of general elections, to be held in May 2013. The parties undergoing dynastic succession are the Awami National Party (ANP), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz(PML-N), Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and Pakistan People’s Party(PPP). The tradition of dynastic succession among prominent political families dates back to British colonial rule up to August 1947 and it has been naturally easy for the children of former Pakistani presidents and prime ministers to assume leadership of a ready-made political following. They have instant access to political grooming and power networks, so politics has become a family trade, much in the way as it is with shopkeepers.
Most prominent among the political heirs apparent, according to the report, is Bilawal Bhutto, the 23-year-old son of Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister assassinated in 2007. The late leader, through her will, transferred all her assets including her party’s leadership to this boy of tender age to pave way for his becoming the prime minister. The senor leaders of the party were not considered worthy of succeeding Bhutto, who herself had inherited the party after sidelining her mother. Her mother was nominated to become leader after her father’s death. The young Bhutto who had assumed the Bhutto surname instead of his father’s Zardari name, at the age of 19 was instantly showered with praises. The young daughter of the then prime minister wrote an article titled “My Leader” attributing to him all leadership qualities a perfect leader is supposed to possess. The senior leaders of the party were no less boot-lickers.
The case of world’s largest “democracy” is no different. According to a report carried by Foreign Policy, the family-run political party is hardly unique to India. It is in fact the norm in South Asia. India's romance with the Gandhis, like America's with the Kennedys and Pakistan’s with the Bhuttos, has been cemented by tragedy. In the case of India and Pakistan, some historical distortions to gain political benefits are deemed in order. Indira Gandhi was Nehru’s daughter married to some Feroze Gandhi so there should be no Gandhi dynasty if we have to stick to the principles of dynastic politics. Similarly, Benazir was Bhutto by birth but Zardari by marriage and his husband and children are not Bhuttos. But both Sonia and Zardari are milking their respective nations for tragic death of Indira and her sons and of Benazir and her father. Although Bhutto had sons too and one of them was assassinated by police when Benazir was in power, but his children are not interested to ask the nation for the price of Bhutto’s tragic death.
Indira was assassinated in 1984; Rajiv in 1991. The willingness to pay this awful price has given the family a special kind of legitimacy -- almost an intrinsic right to rule.

ALLVOICES: Family outsiders milking South Asian nations for family tragedies