Political dynasties have come to stay in South Asia /Monaem Sarker

POLITICAL dynasties in power for long periods have become a part and parcel of life in South Asian countries. This has been possible for their broad and reasonably strong acceptance by the common people as opposed to the elite and the educated minority who consider dynastic rule incongruous in modern day democracies. But, ironically, it is the democratic endorsement unequivocally given every five years that gives the dynastic phenomenon its strength and durability in these countries. It seems that this state of affairs is unlikely to change any time in the near future, if ever at all.

The characteristics of South Asian dynasties are similar in some cases and divergent in others. There are hardly any clear-cut divisions among prominent dynasties. They are both like and unlike one another. Remarkably, they have gone through a spectacular mix of happiness and unhappiness, indeed of elation and despair. At the same time each dynasty rose to eminence and power in different sets of circumstances amidst different configurations of political forces, social milieus and personal predilections.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Solomon Bandarnaike, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman all had participated in the freedom struggles of their respective countries. Their towering personalities, charisma or mass appeal were, of course, the most important attributes of the dynasts and, in some cases at least, their lucky inheritors. But charisma by itself is not enough in this age marked by the revolution of rising expectations. In countries and societies that lack resources and are unable to check their burgeoning populations, it is well nigh impossible to meet even the minimal aspirations of the people. That is where populism, another hallmark of dynastic dispensation, comes in. Every South Asian dynasty, without exception, has taken recourse to populist slogans with varying degrees. Indira Gandhi in India had set the pace. Sheikh Mujib in Bangladesh and Zulfiqar Bhutto in Pakistan outdid her to an astonishing degree. It is perhaps the most revealing coincidence that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Bhutto met roughly the same fate at the end of their distinguished, flamboyant and eventually tragic careers.

Remarkably, the reigning head of every dynasty harks back, consistently and persistently, to the great sacrifices made by his or her family, though perspectives can change over time. It is also worth saying dynasties once defeated at the polls often return to power in a subsequent election, as we have seen in the cases of the Gandhis in India, the Bandarnaikes in Sri Lanka the Bhuttos in Pakistan. The South Asian dynasties, for all their faults, have played a positive role of enabling their countries to go through the difficult transition from colonial rule to democracy. Against this backdrop we will have to look at the present state and future prospects of the dynasties prominent in South Asia. However, instead of discussing four dynasties in the four countries named above, we will concentrate on Bangladesh in this article.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s party, the Awami League, secured 73 per cent votes in the first general elections in 1973. That was a great achievement; even Pundit Nehru in India had never received more than 47 per cent of the

votes polled. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, her son Rajiv Gandhi got 49 per cent that remains that highest ever in India. In Pakistan Bhutto rode to supreme power with only 38 per cent of votes. Unlike Srimavo Bandarnaike and Indira Gandhi, Sheikh Hasina did not get the prime ministership on a silver plate. After the assassination of her father, Sheikh Hasina had to fight and struggle hard for twenty-one years. First six years she spent in New Delhi as an exile. Sheikh Hasina fought with impressive determination and grit. Her stepping into power was more like Banazir’s ascension in Pakistan.

There was no way Hasina could have returned to Bangladesh in the immediate aftermath of her father’s assassination. One thing was clear: power was in the hands of the anti-Awami League clique and the Mujib-haters. They would have eliminated her on sight like they had brutally gunned down the four national leaders, the able lieutenants of Bangabandhu on November 3, 1975 less than three months after the fateful August 15 massacre. Bangabandhu had indeed left behind his party and a hard core of dedicated followers.

In case of Bangladesh the bereaved Awami League requested Hasina to end her exile, return home, take charge and leadership of the party and lead the struggle for restoration of democracy from the front. Party rank and file felt that she alone could keep the party united at the same time. She thus emerged as a mass leader and the country’s future leader. In 1981 Hasina was elected president of the Awami League in her absence.

In the aftermath of General Zia’s assassination, the unexpected that happened was the unanimous election of Khaleda Zia, widow of the slain president, as the chairperson of the BNP. In the early 1980s dynastic succession developed as something natural and normal in Bangladesh, just as it did in Sri Lanka at the end of 1950s, in India in the mid-1960s and in Pakistan in the late 1970s. Was there any surprise in Khaleda’s choice as the leader of her husband’s party? The answer lies in the difference in the circumstances surrounding her case and those relating to others. India Indira Gandhi had invaluable training by being at her father’s elbow all the time, at home and abroad. She had also headed the Congress Party as president. Benazir and Hasina grew up in political atmosphere and got the training in their childhood. But Khaleda had no interest in polities or in the affairs of state as long as her husband was alive. She was happy being a congenial housewife.

Thus by the early 1980s both the ladies – one the orphan of the founding father of Bangladesh and the other the widow of its first military dictator – had successfully won democratic endorsement and taken their bow on the national political stage. Since then they have dominated the political scene to the exclusion of all other political leaders, and it appears that they will be doing so for a long time to come. In all the four countries, dynasties have caused complete polarisation. But nowhere is the situation so alarmingly acute as in Bangladesh. Neither of the two former prime ministers is prepared to concede even the slightest merit to the other’s point of view.

In Bangladesh today though two ladies are incarcerated on corruption charges under emergency rules, they still dominate the electronic and print media. The so-called reformists in Awami League and in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party are cornered and losing out in their appeal. Though several attempts and experiments at permutation and combination have been made for new leaders and new parties over the past nine months or so, nothing has taken shape as yet. Even after so much of corruption and excesses allegedly committed by Khaleda and her sons, the BNP could not be divided. Even the reformists are now seeking Khaleda’s blessings from inside the jail. In case of the Awami League, Hasina’s position is somewhat better. The ‘minus-two’ formula is still on, but the idea is sure to be doomed. We should all remember that Bangladesh is not like Pakistan or Burma (Myanmar). If the present caretaker government backed by the army keeps its word of honour and follow the already announced roadmap, Bangladesh will remain on the path of democracy. If democracy is allowed to have a fair play and general elections are held in a free and fair atmosphere, the Awami League under Hasina’s leadership will certainly come out with flying colours, whether she is inside or outside the jail. The party has won the war of independence with her father incarcerated in Pakistan under threat of death. If past experience of the subcontinent is any guide, such hurdles never succeed in obstructing a dynasty’s march forward. We can conclude with these words that for the foreseeable future, political dynasties have come to stay in Bangladesh as much as in other countries of South Asia.