The Gandhis, the Kennedys and the Bushes: these are but the most famous political dynasties in the world. The seeming persistence of political families holding the reins of power in a democratic country has always raised concerns about the imperfections in popular representation. If Hillary Clinton had won the US presidential elections in 2008, someone from either the Bush or Clinton families would have been in the White House for at least 24 consecutive years.
What accounts for the perpetuation of these familiar last names through the decades? As Volokh Conspiracy blogger Ilya Somin mentions in a post, political ignorance tends to lead to political nepotism in democracies. Because voters know very little about the details of candidates’ ideology and issue positions, they use a candidate’s family affiliation with a popular political leader as an information shortcut. This ignorance is rational, Somin explains, due to voters having “neither the time nor the incentive to do so”.
Another probably reason is the rising cost of elections. Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 million was spent on all elections in the U.S. in 1976, rising to $3.9 billion in 2000. These towering financial barriers to entry might also explain the persistence of political dynasties, whose brimming campaign war chests ensure sufficient ammunition for a well-funded election run. It will nonetheless be interesting to see how the Supreme Court’s overturning of limitations on corporate spending will affect political dynasties’ financial heft during campaigning. It remains to be seen whether an unprecedented influx of money from corporations will further strengthen or weaken the advantages they already hold.
Do political dynasties mean that lesser-qualified people, by virtue of name recognition, get voted into office? As the example of a certain 46th governor of Texas illustrates, quite likely. However, voters get lucky – sometimes. Benigno Aquino, current Philippine president and a fourth-generation politician, so far seems to be emerging from the silhouette of his prestigious ancestry and doing a relatively good job of running the country. All in all, it seems that a prolonged era of rule by members of the same family tend to be detrimental to a country’s democracy.
With that said, increased democratization will not eliminate political dynasties; even the most enfranchised nations in the world have them. That is not to say democratization is unhelpful in itself. After all, the magic can’t last forever. Voters tend to give political scions one free election before evaluating them on their own merits. That may sound like scant consolation, but for North Koreans upset with their current ruler however, the only prospect of change is, somewhat curiously, his own son.
Photo Credit: kfrc.radio.com
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.