It is not a question of elections only, who gets to lead. In South Asia, it is more of a question of lineage. The emergence of the so-called nepo-child or heirs who are born in political families and placed in leading positions has become the new characteristic of our democratic world.
Bangladesh is no exception. On parliament floors to party conferences, the name on the surname may weigh more than the ideas one comes with. South Asia political dynasties did not just appear without any warning. They sprouted out of liberation movements, charismatic leaders and parties that were centered on large personalities. The Nehru-Gandhi family has continued to be a strong brand in India, a grandeur to some as the custodian of a legacy, a symbol of elite takeover to others.
These inheritances have their versions in Bangladesh. Families which were at crossroads in history have long been the centre of political space, and the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or that of Begum Khaleda Zia was no exception. The generations brought up in such families usually emerge as their natural successors. Whether these individuals are talented or not is not the question. Many do. The question is what will become of democracy when the road to leadership becomes limited to bloodline.
There are three arguments that political heirs advocate. To start with, legacy entails continuity. Institutional memory, the tales of sacrifice, repression, and struggle in the public, is a part of families which lived politics decades long. Second, dynastic succession has the capacity to stabilise the turbulent parties. Institutions that are weak do not generate much internal conflict because familiar faces are involved. Third, nepotism is not necessarily equal to incompetence. Children brought up in political families learn early on in life about debate, government, diplomacy, and government service, and some of them grow up to be competent, dedicated leaders.
Experience tells us: legacy can either be privilege or reform. Reality is complex. The threat within the coziness. However, there are grave dangers of legacy. When leadership is inherited, the politics of citizenship is transformed into the politics of inheritance. Opportunity is reduced – not merely of common citizens, but also of grassroot organisers, youth activists and even women who are not connected, but may have an ability.
Accountability is another weakness of nepotism. When one advances due to bloodline and not due to competition, then loyalty takes the place of performance. Criticism becomes betrayal. Parties turn to being personality based rather than being policy based.
The outcome can be seen in Bangladesh. The youth consider politics a closed system, a club of families. Merit loses connection. The engagement of citizens declines over time and politics are superficial, more enraged, and less creative. The same contradictions exist in India. Democracy is alive, but those whose political capital is inherited can easily get into the game. When two nations hold the same trend, it is an indication of a greater issue of structure.
There are three forces that justify the emergence of nepo-children. Where there is no transparent election of leaders, the parties will be guided on personalities, and families are made brands. Voters associate leadership and sacrifice and remembrance: martyrdom, exile, imprisonment. That emotional credit is passed on to children. Networks and money are required in campaigns. The already powerful stay in power. This implies that the problem is not an individual one. A new generation, digital, youthful generation is posing new questions: Who represents us? Who listens? Who gets to rise?
Political successors will still exist. They must be rated on integrity, competence, and service – not sacked automatically, but not favoured automatically. Democracy can flourish in an open leadership style of a leader in which historical doors are not shut. It is not aimed at eliminating political families. It is making them compete, not being heirs. Reforms on that matter include internal party democracy and open elections of the leadership. Rules and legacies may not be incompatible; they may not even choke life out of merit.
The nepo-child debate is finally all about democracy that we desire. Is it in politics a family property, one generation to the other? Or a common stock in which whoever he may be, whether by surname or not, may be elevated by service, by manliness, by ability? Bangladesh has had its share of sacrifice and perseverance. We should not write our next chapter, only of those who are born into authority, but those who rise to authority. Democracy is not as strong as its names on top, but rather its doors open back.
The writer is a CEO and Protection Specialist in Favor Consultancy
