south asian democracies, mainly india, pakistan, bangladesh and sri lanka, though different somehow in their workings, constitutions and local conditions share some common things and the harmful effects of dynastic rule is one of them.
indira gandhi, mujib ur rehman, z a bhutto, bhandarnaike are considered to be leaders who laid the path of dynastic rules in respective countries and these south asian nations still getting the ache from it. the consequences are as follows-
1. the party or the government has lost its original ideology and good leadership due to the hereditary successions.
2. this dynastic rule has also led to the feudal tradition in the country in which the bureaucrats too will and are always ready to praise the ruling regime and thus, governmental structure lost its wisdom.
3. this also impacted the democratic govt as though the elections are held regularly but the representatives of the people follow the path as suggested by their dynastic leader.
4. the judiciary also have the commitment for such dynastic classes which impede in fair and transparent judgments.
5. it also encourages corruption and the communalism also gets boost from it.
6. this dynastic regime lowers the growth and development of the nation.
though, good leaders can born in a family and could govern the country successively but making it like the dynastic succession without any quality and capability in person ultimately harm the nation and its wisdom in long run.
Ans2:
Before the onset of welfare states on to the world stage there were kings and queens who ruled the kingdoms.After the birth of logical ideas during renaissance, people started questioning the rulers.French revolution,American revolution sowed the seeds of democracy among the nations of the world.
A purely democratic set up functions according to the will of the people.Voting rights were provided to the people to elect their own leaders.But even in a democratic set up we see the hangover of feudal sycophancy in which dynastic politics wreak havoc on true ideals of what it means to be a democratic country.
South Asian countries like India,Pakistan,Srilanka and Bangladesh have seen their democratic set ups being shaken by dynastic politics of their own kind.
Consequences are far reaching in the sense that the dynastic politics hinders the very process of democracy within the party lines leading to sycophancy of party workers towards pleasing the dynastic heirs than conforming to the principles of inner party democracy.
Dynastic politics hampers induction of newly enthusiastic and creative members of ordinary background from occupying important positions which will hamper the growth of the party.
Representatives of the people and even the bureaucrats try to flout rules in pleasing the dynastic heirs in order to get lucrative postings.
The very fabric of democracy becomes questionable because people will have a restricted choice of choosing the same candidate from a particular dynasty every time they face election.
While it may be true that Nehru ,Gandhis and Bhuttos have augered well for their respective countries in the past ,it cannot be guaranteed that their descendants have the same potential to lead the country on a greater path.In a democracy everyone should be given a chance to compete in elections and occupy important positions irrespective of their caste,class and family identity.Democracy should not be sacrificed in the name of dynastic politics.
Ans3:
South Asia has a surprising success rate with dynastic political parties working within a democratic framework. Although the concept is not entirely new with
politicians adopting this practice in other countries, the level of competence
and cohesiveness demonstrated in these parties has been truly questionable. Although it is difficult to pinpoint all factors that continue to harm dynastic
democracies, the inability of sound political judgment to be transferred
throughout the generations can be one option.
These parties have flourished for their mass appeal which has somehow
transferred to latter generations as well. The aura and charisma portrayed by
previous members may not necessarily be present with the current generation. However, the development of a personality cult does not necessarily mean development of the party towards the cause of democratic governance. Stalwarts of these parties are often coined less deserving and voluntarily submit to the motives of those above. What continues to be the appeal then? The simple fact is that kinship continues to play a great role in forging of bonds in dynastic parties
which is self-exemplary. The manner in which decisions are carried out, always
have pre-conditions of the perpetuation of the current leader’s accomplishments
to a latter generation. Analysis from an anthropological POV validates this, where
consanguineal relations are the natural way forward. It enforces clan principles,
and perpetuates consistency in clan decisions. However, from a utilitarian
perspective, a simple survival of dynasties requires continual mastering of
relations, whether forged decades before, or in encouraging newer ones. There
has been a continuous decline in the quality of leadership through each
generation and with the current trend across countries in upsetting the
balances in campaign races, the future of the dynastic government has become
questionable. There was a time when dynasty spoke to the lesser educated as a
mere presence of the progeny caught people’s attention, however the future of
governance is open to those truly willing to speak to these people. The current
government in India has subverted the practices of past parties with new
practices such as “Mann ki Baat”, however newer more innovative solutions are
required for a hungrier civil population.
indira gandhi, mujib ur rehman, z a bhutto, bhandarnaike are considered to be leaders who laid the path of dynastic rules in respective countries and these south asian nations still getting the ache from it. the consequences are as follows-
1. the party or the government has lost its original ideology and good leadership due to the hereditary successions.
2. this dynastic rule has also led to the feudal tradition in the country in which the bureaucrats too will and are always ready to praise the ruling regime and thus, governmental structure lost its wisdom.
3. this also impacted the democratic govt as though the elections are held regularly but the representatives of the people follow the path as suggested by their dynastic leader.
4. the judiciary also have the commitment for such dynastic classes which impede in fair and transparent judgments.
5. it also encourages corruption and the communalism also gets boost from it.
6. this dynastic regime lowers the growth and development of the nation.
though, good leaders can born in a family and could govern the country successively but making it like the dynastic succession without any quality and capability in person ultimately harm the nation and its wisdom in long run.
Ans2:
Before the onset of welfare states on to the world stage there were kings and queens who ruled the kingdoms.After the birth of logical ideas during renaissance, people started questioning the rulers.French revolution,American revolution sowed the seeds of democracy among the nations of the world.
A purely democratic set up functions according to the will of the people.Voting rights were provided to the people to elect their own leaders.But even in a democratic set up we see the hangover of feudal sycophancy in which dynastic politics wreak havoc on true ideals of what it means to be a democratic country.
South Asian countries like India,Pakistan,Srilanka and Bangladesh have seen their democratic set ups being shaken by dynastic politics of their own kind.
Consequences are far reaching in the sense that the dynastic politics hinders the very process of democracy within the party lines leading to sycophancy of party workers towards pleasing the dynastic heirs than conforming to the principles of inner party democracy.
Dynastic politics hampers induction of newly enthusiastic and creative members of ordinary background from occupying important positions which will hamper the growth of the party.
Representatives of the people and even the bureaucrats try to flout rules in pleasing the dynastic heirs in order to get lucrative postings.
The very fabric of democracy becomes questionable because people will have a restricted choice of choosing the same candidate from a particular dynasty every time they face election.
While it may be true that Nehru ,Gandhis and Bhuttos have augered well for their respective countries in the past ,it cannot be guaranteed that their descendants have the same potential to lead the country on a greater path.In a democracy everyone should be given a chance to compete in elections and occupy important positions irrespective of their caste,class and family identity.Democracy should not be sacrificed in the name of dynastic politics.
Ans3:
South Asia has a surprising success rate with dynastic political parties working within a democratic framework. Although the concept is not entirely new with
politicians adopting this practice in other countries, the level of competence
and cohesiveness demonstrated in these parties has been truly questionable. Although it is difficult to pinpoint all factors that continue to harm dynastic
democracies, the inability of sound political judgment to be transferred
throughout the generations can be one option.
These parties have flourished for their mass appeal which has somehow
transferred to latter generations as well. The aura and charisma portrayed by
previous members may not necessarily be present with the current generation. However, the development of a personality cult does not necessarily mean development of the party towards the cause of democratic governance. Stalwarts of these parties are often coined less deserving and voluntarily submit to the motives of those above. What continues to be the appeal then? The simple fact is that kinship continues to play a great role in forging of bonds in dynastic parties
which is self-exemplary. The manner in which decisions are carried out, always
have pre-conditions of the perpetuation of the current leader’s accomplishments
to a latter generation. Analysis from an anthropological POV validates this, where
consanguineal relations are the natural way forward. It enforces clan principles,
and perpetuates consistency in clan decisions. However, from a utilitarian
perspective, a simple survival of dynasties requires continual mastering of
relations, whether forged decades before, or in encouraging newer ones. There
has been a continuous decline in the quality of leadership through each
generation and with the current trend across countries in upsetting the
balances in campaign races, the future of the dynastic government has become
questionable. There was a time when dynasty spoke to the lesser educated as a
mere presence of the progeny caught people’s attention, however the future of
governance is open to those truly willing to speak to these people. The current
government in India has subverted the practices of past parties with new
practices such as “Mann ki Baat”, however newer more innovative solutions are
required for a hungrier civil population.
No comments:
Post a Comment