Mahmud Farooque, from the drishtipat writers’ collective, has chimed in this month’s forum on the reality of political dynasty. Almost a year ago, another blogger in this blog raised a lot of hue and cry with his “Say no to Dynastic Politics” piece. This time Mahmud goes into deep to unearth the cause and the reality of the situation. This study is quite pertinent as we are about to revisit “Minus 2 — the Sequel” in the coming days.




In late December, our progressive, chattering classes — in political addas, opinion pages and the blogosphere — recoiled almost instantaneously in disgust and disbelief upon learning that 19-year-old Bilawal Bhutto was designated to succeed his assassinated mother at the helm of the Pakistan People’s Party, leaving the leadership of the party in the hands of the third successive generation of its founding family.
However, a comparable outrage by the same group was remarkably absent in considering the implications of a Hillary Clinton candidacy, which, if successful, would mean a Bush or a Clinton has been on the US presidential ballot for 28 years and counting. There is an internet site called Bush-Clinton Forever that charts a possible roadmap of keeping either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House till as far as 2057!
So why does the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency not raise as many eyebrows among our progressive opinion-makers as does the prospect of a Bilawal Bhutto prime ministership?
When asked, a vast majority of them point to the process, and argue that in the US case the outcome was merely the product of chance and not something determined through an autocratic decree or institutional design. Notwithstanding the disputed results in Florida, there would have been a first Gore rather than a second Bush in the White House in 2001 had the four electoral votes in the state of New Hampshire gone into the Democratic column.
(more…)