Blood ties

Published December 7, 2014

In the political system of kinship, ruling dynasties played an important role in controlling the affairs of the state. Through power and authority they accumulated wealth and riches, but allocated a part of it to acquire the loyalty of the aristocracy who supported them in order to sustain their status. Once the ruling dynasty acquired power, they would concentrate on ways and means to retain power within the family so that it could be inherited by the future generations.

To distinguish themselves from other classes, ruling dynasties often used symbols or a unique logic and reasoning. Some of them claimed either to be divine representatives or assumed divine power to legitimise their rule. For example, Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus, who had impregnated his mother in the shape of a snake. When Alexander conquered Egypt, he was recognised as pharaoh and thus a god on earth.

Likewise, Roman emperors enjoyed the same status as deities. In medieval Europe, it was believed that the king had spiritual power and his touch could heal the sick and ailing. The Asian rulers also legitimised their rule on the basis of spiritual power. However, it is evident that when a dynasty and its members ruled for a longer period, the subsequent generations became less talented and gradually lost the vitality and capability of ruling over the country. The reason for this was probably the fact that they inherited power and authority by qualification of their birth and not on merit or after struggle and endeavour.


Dynasties have a sell-by date, after which they lose potency and relevance


In his book the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun argues that the royal family could rule with the capacity and understanding of political matters up to four generations. After that, there would be rulers who succeeded not because of their intelligence but only as imitators of their ancestors. As a result, the dynasty declined and lost its prestige.

If we were to apply Khaldun’s analysis to the Mughal dynasty, excluding Babar and Humayun, but considering Akbar the founder of the dynasty, the Mughal rule continued undisturbed up to Aurengzeb. After him began their period of decline. One after another, worthless and debauched rulers came into power. It is not possible for any dynasty to produce talented and intelligent members continuously because talent is not a property of any particular family. When power is inherited by the weak and dependent, the state confronts disorder and chaos.

In a democratic system, the monopoly of a royal dynasty over political power gradually comes to an end. Democracy opens the venue to all classes of society to contest for power and display their talent to govern the country. In advanced democratic societies, political parties provide space to all people to participate in politics which is why people from humble origins can also get the opportunity to become the head of the state. This is the beauty of a democratic system that it benefits from intelligent people who utilise their energy for building institutions and traditions for the welfare of the country.

In the case of Pakistan, we can divide history into two parts. The first is from 1947 to 1970, while the second part is from 1972 to the present. In the first part of the history of this country, political parties were not dominated by any dynasty. However post 1970, the situation changed with the PPP emerging as an important political faction, coming into power after the independence of Bangladesh. Since then, dynastic politics have been introduced into our political system with the sole aim of preserving leadership within the family and not allowing it to be shared with others. It is similar to the feudal culture where landlords are very protective of their property and want to confine it to their families.

The same policy is adopted in case of political parties which are considered as their property or jagirs, while political workers are like their subordinates.

No ordinary member is allowed to contest for high posts. There is such a grip of family members on the affairs of the party that only sycophants survive to maintain their closeness to the leadership.

Any violation or disobedience of the leader would result in expulsion of the political worker and cancellation of their party membership. Therefore all political workers and important members of the party blindly follow the instructions of the top leadership.

As a matter of fact, dynastic politics works against democratic traditions and norms since a privileged family has no legitimate right to acquire leadership of the party. If this type of leadership is allowed to continue, the result is incompetent leadership. Mature leadership cannot be achieved only through rhetoric or by mobilising public emotion. Large gatherings and processions may thrive on the energies of people but they don’t necessarily inculcate among them a sense of discipline or political consciousness.

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, December 7th, 2014

Opinion

Editorial

‘Source of terror’
Updated 29 Mar, 2024

‘Source of terror’

It is clear that going after militant groups inside Afghanistan unilaterally presents its own set of difficulties.
Chipping in
29 Mar, 2024

Chipping in

FEDERAL infrastructure development schemes are located in the provinces. Most such projects — for instance,...
Toxic emitters
29 Mar, 2024

Toxic emitters

IT is concerning to note that dozens of industries have been violating environmental laws in and around Islamabad....
Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...