Dynastic democracies
It has been pointed out before -- but I'm going to do it again anyway -- that the U.S. will potentially have close to 40 years of just two families running the White House:
1988 - 1992 George Bush Snr
1992 - 2000 Bill Clinton
2000 - 2008 George W. Bush
2008 - 2016 Hilary Clinton
2016 - 2024 Jeb Bush
This doesn't even show the impact of the Kennedys on the scene.
But the U.S. is far from the only democracy to elect such dynasties. After close to fifty years of independence inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, India this year elected his granddaughter by marriage, Sonia, having previously voted in her husband and her mother-in-law. Yuri Andropov ran the Soviet Union in the 1980s thanks to his KGB connections but the Russians have just given another former KGB man, Putin, a mandate for four more years.
In case you thought it was the vast scale of these democracies that made it so difficult to break this dominant order down, take a look at the U.K. where from 1979 to 2010 we'll have had three Prime Ministers, two of whom (Thatcher and Blair) will have been in power for almost thirteen years each: that's more than three U.S. presidential terms.
I doubt that this is due to a populace who believe that it's better the devil you know. The establishment selects and promotes candidates in each of these countries. Without the support of the establishment, the candidates are barely seen in the national media, get no airtime and their views aren't covered. And woe betide them if they cross the establishment that put them there. Bush must pursue Zionist hawkish policies, Blair must appease the CBI, Putin must crush the Chechnyans. The establishment can put you up there and bring you back down again as it did to Thatcher, or use you and spit you out again as Sonia Gandhi has found.
2 comments:
You said: "After close to fifty years of independence inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, India this year elected his granddaughter by marriage, Sonia, having previously voted in her husband and her mother-in-law."
This is a common misconception. Even though Sonia Gandhi's last name is the same as Mahatma Gandhi's, they are NOT RELATED in any way. At all. Sonia Gandhi's husband was the grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister - again no relation to the Mahatma.
Nehru's daughter Indira Nehru married a Parsi genteman name Feroze Gandhi (some say that the last name was Gandhy as many Parsis spell it - but it was changed for political reasons ... yes due to the Mahatma's name).
After marriage she shrewdly changed it to Indira Gandhi and the connection with the Mahatma was made concrete in the minds of many.
Even today, indian election posters show the Mahatma, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi (her son) in the same poster to evoke the non-existent connection.
Blimey, that'll teach me to blog on the bus without getting my facts straight. I do remember that the relation was to Nehru, but managed to be sucked into the machinations of the Congress party despite myself. Apologies to all; though I do think this still constitutes a dynastic democracy.
Post a Comment