IN a recent interview to the BBC, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari stressed on just how impossible it was to escape dynastic politics in Pakistan. He recalled that the mantle of leadership was thrust upon him — and his father — after the death of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, just as it was once imposed on his mother after the judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Understandably, such an explanation is bound to — and justifiably does — draw criticism. However, while the PPP may believe that, with the killing of its leaders, it has reason to depend on dynasty for survival, it is by no means the only party that has flagrantly and jealously chosen to keep the leadership within the family. The Sharifs are equally possessive and so are many other parties, both religion-based and so-called secular ones. The question is always: Bilawal or Bakhtawar or Aseefa? Nawaz or Shahbaz or Hamza or Maryam — or, why not, the very talented Suleman Shahbaz? Indeed, why not?

In fact, ‘circumstances’ is the key word here. Circumstances do prevent a break from dynasty and there is a lot of truth in the opinion that dynasty did help the PPP survive — until now, that is. The BBC interviewer wanted to know whether it was Mr Bhutto-Zardari or his father Mr Asif Zardari who ran the party’s affairs. Given that the young man is increasingly looked upon as a son following in his father’s footsteps, this was a somewhat irrelevant question. It is here that we must tread on more complicated ground where a political heir is faced with the difficult proposition of having to choose from not one, not two but at least three legacies: his father’s, his mother’s and his grandfather’s — even if we were to forget the altogether distinct traditions set by his uncles, Murtaza Bhutto and Shahnawaz Bhutto. For Mr Bhutto-Zardari, while there may be no escape from dynastic politics, the right lead is what he should be concentrating on.

Published in Dawn, April 21st, 2018