The Dynasties of Democracy

1/24/08

The Dynasties of Democracy

Dimokratia is the Greek word for democracy, or rule by the people, in its most literal translation. Democracy is an ancient political concept, stretching as far back as the 4^th century B.C.E., when Aristotle and Plato were actively contrasting and comparing its benefits and disadvantages. Both men were from the city of Athens, where a power struggle between the democrats and the oligarchs, or those who supported rule by a few privileged, elite members of society, led to turmoil in the city and execution of leading democratic politicians in 411 B.C.E.

From ancient times, the question has always been: who will govern the people? Power struggles have ensued in every society and politicians have vied with each other for control over the government, sometimes in subtle ways, other times in a brutally repulsive manner. Dynasties have been established and overthrown all in the hopes of gaining and securing power.

Pakistan and America both face the question of who will govern the people, and while ostensibly, both countries are democracies, the current political trends have alarmed me. In the US, a former president’s wife is running for office, and in Pakistan, the teenage son of an assassinated politician has been declared co-chairperson of one of the leading political parties. On the surface, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bilawar Bhutto Zardari seem to have very little in common, yet the political machinery they are relying upon is founded on the success of someone in their families. In effect, we are seeing the emergence of the Clinton dynasty and the resurgence of the Bhutto dynasty.

Let us seriously consider whether Hillary Clinton, on her own merit, would be such a popular candidate. She has little personal charm (despite her teary eyes in New Hampshire) and has never retracted her vote in favor of the war in Iraq, which is a source of contention. Her health care plan was developed recently compared to the other candidates and is a near duplicate of John Edwards’. Yet the Clinton name is attractive, especially considering Bill Clinton’s enormous popularity. People joke about the 2-for-1 deal when they mention Hillary and say that they’re going to get Bill in the White House again for free.

Similarly, Bilawar, a nineteen-year-old who has spent most of his life outside of Pakistan and has no political experience, would never have been appointed a co-chair of anything other than a student organization at Oxford if he wasn’t Benazir’s son. Yet the Bhutto legacy continues to stand strong, in part because of Benazir’s tragic murder. The woman who had previously been accused of corruption charges is today celebrated as a martyr. Her death has endowed her son with an aura of moral and political authority.

Of course, both the U.S. and Pakistan have a history of political families. The Kennedy family in the U.S. and the Bhutto family in Pakistan have traditionally been actively involved in politics. Yet political families may not offer the best solutions for a country, especially countries such as America and Pakistan that are poised for overwhelming change that will affect domestic and foreign policy.

While Bill Clinton in his time was an effective president and the Bhutto family members have been leaders of Pakistan, their relatives do not represent the best option for their respective countries. These political families have become dynasties, where power is passed from one hand to another, regardless of the suitability of the next in line. Neither Hillary nor Bilawar are the worst options for America or Pakistan, but nor are they the best, and unfortunately, they can rest on the laurels of their eminent relations. They are entrenched in politics, and speak of change, hope, and democracy but lack actual substance to their promises.

We should demand politicians who do not support wars that drain our resources, like Hillary does. We should demand politicians who do not have associations with people in positions of power who received kickbacks from foreign companies doing business in Pakistan, which is what Bilawar’s father was accused of. We should demand change. I do not advocate change for the sake of change, but rather because the politicians of today have very little to offer the public in terms of actual policy. Although they attempt to show us that they have political experience—sometimes only by association with a political family, as though political acumen is genetic or can be transmitted via diffusion—their experience reads more like political expediency and opportunism.

Pakistan’s and America’s political destinies are inextricably intertwined. Both countries are at historic points in politics, and the promise of a new order, where politicians serve the demos, or people, and not their self-interests, approaches. The upcoming elections in both countries offer their citizens this hint of a promise—if only we can grasp it in time.