fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Dynastic politics
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Capital suggestion
Democracy is about three things: elections, accountability and a responsive government. We have had ten elections over the past 44 years but our democracy lacks accountability and has failed to produce a responsive government. In essence, all we have had is one-third of democracy; the other two-third has been missing. To be certain, the cure to our severe democratic shortfall is more democracy, not less.
One-person-one-vote is meant to do three things: One, make the government responsive to the needs of the voters. Two, equality in government decision-making. Three, equality before the law. Equality in government decision-making, in turn, results in two budgetary outcomes: high budgetary allocations for health and for education.
High budgetary allocations for health and for education, in turn, result in two things: One, higher levels of human development. Two, higher levels of economic growth.
One-person-one-vote also means equality before the law. And equality before the law results in mitigation of corruption. Why isn’t the one-person-one-vote formula bearing fruit in Pakistan? Answer: Dynastic politics could be a major impediment.
Dynastic politics is a system of governance whereby “several members of a family are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.”
There are dynasties in democracies – Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Democracies and dynasties co-exist: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s family (Bangladesh), Soekarnos (Indonesia), Aquino family (Philippines), Nehru-Gandhi family (India), Bandaranaike’s family (Sri Lanka) and Sharif-Bhutto families (Pakistan).
Empirical models have determined the share of dynastic politics in various countries: US 6 percent; Argentina 10 percent; India 28 percent; Mexico 40 percent and the Philippines 70 percent. According to the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives, “On average, approximately two-thirds of the elected [Pakistani] legislators …belonging to approximately 400 families” represent the spectrum of dynastic politicians (the share of dynastic politics stands at around 67 percet in Pakistan).
Dynastic politics has meant two things the world over. One, reduced electoral competition among candidates whereby party tickets are awarded on the basis of dynasties, not merit. Two, high barriers of entry into electoral politics whereby one needs millions of rupees plus dynastic connections in order to enter into politics.
Dynastic politics, the world over, has six notable outcomes. One, if the share of dynastic politics is high so is the level of poverty. Two, if the share of dynastic politics is high there is massive under-investment in education. Three, if the share of dynastic politics is high there is massive under-investment in health.
Four, if the share of dynastic politics is high the probability that the state will fail to provide basic services – water, electricity and justice – is also high. Five, if the share of dynastic politics is high political parties will lack internal democracy. Six, if the share of dynastic politics is high so will be the financial net-worth of dynastic politicians.
The bicameral Congress of the Philippines is now debating House Bill 3587 or the Act Prohibiting the Establishment of Political Dynasties. House Bill 3587 “proposes to limit clans from building political dynasties by prohibiting relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity to hold or run for both national and local posts in successive, simultaneous, and overlapping terms.”
In the Philippines, the anti-dynasty debate has been stuck at the committee level for the past 27 long years. The bill now faces formidable challenges in a House still dominated by dynastic politicians.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com. Twitter: @saleemfarrukh
Dr Farrukh Saleem
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Capital suggestion
Democracy is about three things: elections, accountability and a responsive government. We have had ten elections over the past 44 years but our democracy lacks accountability and has failed to produce a responsive government. In essence, all we have had is one-third of democracy; the other two-third has been missing. To be certain, the cure to our severe democratic shortfall is more democracy, not less.
One-person-one-vote is meant to do three things: One, make the government responsive to the needs of the voters. Two, equality in government decision-making. Three, equality before the law. Equality in government decision-making, in turn, results in two budgetary outcomes: high budgetary allocations for health and for education.
High budgetary allocations for health and for education, in turn, result in two things: One, higher levels of human development. Two, higher levels of economic growth.
One-person-one-vote also means equality before the law. And equality before the law results in mitigation of corruption. Why isn’t the one-person-one-vote formula bearing fruit in Pakistan? Answer: Dynastic politics could be a major impediment.
Dynastic politics is a system of governance whereby “several members of a family are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.”
There are dynasties in democracies – Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Democracies and dynasties co-exist: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s family (Bangladesh), Soekarnos (Indonesia), Aquino family (Philippines), Nehru-Gandhi family (India), Bandaranaike’s family (Sri Lanka) and Sharif-Bhutto families (Pakistan).
Empirical models have determined the share of dynastic politics in various countries: US 6 percent; Argentina 10 percent; India 28 percent; Mexico 40 percent and the Philippines 70 percent. According to the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives, “On average, approximately two-thirds of the elected [Pakistani] legislators …belonging to approximately 400 families” represent the spectrum of dynastic politicians (the share of dynastic politics stands at around 67 percet in Pakistan).
Dynastic politics has meant two things the world over. One, reduced electoral competition among candidates whereby party tickets are awarded on the basis of dynasties, not merit. Two, high barriers of entry into electoral politics whereby one needs millions of rupees plus dynastic connections in order to enter into politics.
Dynastic politics, the world over, has six notable outcomes. One, if the share of dynastic politics is high so is the level of poverty. Two, if the share of dynastic politics is high there is massive under-investment in education. Three, if the share of dynastic politics is high there is massive under-investment in health.
Four, if the share of dynastic politics is high the probability that the state will fail to provide basic services – water, electricity and justice – is also high. Five, if the share of dynastic politics is high political parties will lack internal democracy. Six, if the share of dynastic politics is high so will be the financial net-worth of dynastic politicians.
The bicameral Congress of the Philippines is now debating House Bill 3587 or the Act Prohibiting the Establishment of Political Dynasties. House Bill 3587 “proposes to limit clans from building political dynasties by prohibiting relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity to hold or run for both national and local posts in successive, simultaneous, and overlapping terms.”
In the Philippines, the anti-dynasty debate has been stuck at the committee level for the past 27 long years. The bill now faces formidable challenges in a House still dominated by dynastic politicians.
The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com. Twitter: @saleemfarrukh
