The problem

POLITICAL leaders with dynastic ties have held prominent positions in every country in South Asia: the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Bhuttos in Pakistan, the Koiralas in Nepal, the Senanayekes and Bandaranaikes in Sri Lanka, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh, and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. A great deal has been written showing that family ties are important across South Asia, but less on what these ties represent and why they have come to play such a role. This issue of Seminar focuses attention on these questions of interpretation and explanation.

First, we ask, what are the analytical categories we should use to understand political families in South Asia and the role that they play? Do they represent the persistence of ‘traditional’ pre-colonial institutional forms, their reinvention, or the creation of new post-colonial institutions?

Second, to what extent do family ties represent a systemic phenomenon in the politics of South Asia? We already know that they matter for a handful of positions at the apex of politics in every country. But how much do they matter across levels of government – national, regional and local – and across political institutions – parties, parliaments, militaries, and bureaucracies – in South Asian countries?

Third, how does the role of family ties vary across countries in South Asia? South Asian countries have had a varying history of political regimes – long periods of democratic rule in India and Sri Lanka co-exist with long periods of monarchic rule in Nepal and Bhutan, cycles of military rule in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and extended military rule in Burma. Are family ties associated with all these regimes equally and in the same way?

To explain where and why dynasties have taken root in South Asian politics, we need also to examine instances in which they have not. Many powerful politicians in South Asia do not come from political dynasties. When and why do individual politicians become prominent in politics without a family background? All dynastic heirs are not able to carry on family legacies. Which ones do and why? All dynasties are not able to retain power over generations. Under what conditions do dynasties die and under what conditions do they persist over time?

Finally, what difference does it make, to citizens and the state, when family ties come to play an important political role? Dynasties are usually seen as anti-democratic. But there are deeper issues beyond this simple dichotomy that remain to be addressed. If dynastic politics is un-democratic, why does it appear to be a persistent feature of democratic regimes in South Asia? How does dynastic politics affect non-democratic regimes? Do they stabilize or weaken non-democratic states? Can legitimate civil resistance take a dynastic form and if so why?

KANCHAN CHANDRA