World political dynasties

EXACTLY a month ago Botswana went to the polls for the 2014 general elections.

EXACTLY a month ago Botswana went to the polls for the 2014 general elections.

The result was a unanimous victory for the Botswana Democratic Party whose fourth president is Ian Seretse Khama.

His father, Sir Seretse Khama was Botswana’s foremost presidential leader and ruled the country from 1966 to 1980.

So it’s quite interesting that his son is now at the helm of Botswana politics. Ofcourse Ian was not new to the political arena having deputised former President Festus Mogae.

Prior to this Ian served as the commander of the Botswana Armed Forces. Ian as ascension to presidency is reminiscent of many political dynasties.

George HW Bush was the 41st President of the United States. His eldest son, George W Bush later became the 43rd President of the US.

President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo picked up the reigns of presidency in 2001 after his father Laurent Kabila died in office.

A political dynasty is defined as a family group that maintains power in a country for several generations or has a succession of leaders from the same family.

History is painted with many colourful examples of dynasties. The Bourbons were a European dynasty that ruled in France from 1589 to 1793.

However, the 20th Century has its own illustrious examples of dynasties. The Kennedy family are arguably one political dynasty who dominated and romanticised American politics.

Who can forget the magnetic John F Kennedy who was president from January 1961 till his assassination in 1963.

Although his brothers Robert and Ted never became presidents they were prominent Senators.

The Nehru-Ghandi family is another prominent Indian political dynasty. For 40 years from the time India gained independence from Britain in 1947 they were the face of Indian politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s prime minister until 1964. Indira Ghandi became India’s third prime minister and served for a decade from 1966 to 1976 and later in 1980 until she was assassinated in 1984.

She was succeeded by her son Rajiv Ghandi who was assassinated like his mother. Rahul Ghandi recently suffered defeat in theMay 2014 elections, a signal that it might be the end of Ghandi domination of Indian politics.

I was reading an interesting paper which served to explore whether there does exist a relationship between political dynasties and poverty.

The writers, Mendoza, Beja, Venida and Yap (2013) used evidence from the Philippines to support their case.

The Philippines is famous for its politics centred on families as opposed to political parties.

For example, the notorious Jalosjos clan in the Philipinnes rules 73 out of the 80 provinces. It is just one out of 178 dynasties that have a monopolised power.

One of the findings was that increased poverty does not induce the emergence of political dynasties, but contributes to the expansion of the largest and strongest political dynasties.

They found that the poorest in the community were the most vulnerable to political patronage and as such political dynasties thrived on cultivating extensive networks of political patronage.

As it is often said, politics of patronage will make people loyal to a leader or family that delivers on that patronage.

The big question, however, is; is there anything wrong with political dynasties? Is there anything wrong with a son succeeding his father, brother succeeding brother or power passing from husband to wife?

Remember how Hilary Clinton ran as the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008?

This was after Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of America from 1993 to 2001. Then there was Eva Peron who ran for vice-president during her husband’s tenure as president.

Remember history is still to be made by a first lady becoming president.

Is there anything wrong with children following in their parents’ political footsteps? Is it not a failure that none of the offspring of the Mandelas or Tambos have served to further carry their parents’ legacy?

The biggest argument against political dynasties has largely been that power ought to be dispersed as opposed to being concentrated in one family since it limits those eligible for office.

There is a general feeling that leadership should be earned and political dynasties seem to perpetuate entitlement.

Moreover, it is often felt dynasties promote politics of self serving interests and non-equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. What is your take on political dynasties? Yay or nay?

Sue Nyathi is the author of the novel The Polygamist. You can follow her on Twitter @SueNyathi