Font size: 
The worst culprit of this practice was Jawahar Lal Nehru, India's first and most beloved prime minister. He sweet-talked everybody into the virtues of democracy, while behind the scenes he was working to appoint his daughter Indira Gandhi as prime minister.
Gandhi, as prime minister, appointed her son as heir apparent. He succeeded her in 1985. It did not stop there; after the son was assassinated, his wife took over the party for 20 years as a personal fiefdom. She now is working hard to appoint their non-descript, clean but boring son as heir apparent. One day he will be a prime minister too.
In Pakistan, it was Zulfikar Bhutto, the former prime minister who appointed very young Benazir, his daughter, as heir apparent of the political party that he founded. Benazir 10 years later became the prime minister. Now she is dead, but she has willed that her teenage son, as soon as he finishes studies, grab the levers of the political party and become prime minister.
In Bangladesh, a sickening battle of two begums has been going on for over two decades. One is the wife of former President Ziaur Rahman and the other is the daughter of the assassinated leader Sheikh Mujib Rehman. Their fight for political power is the primary reason for Bangladesh's backwardness. For this reason, the Mullah ideology is looking attractive to the people.
South Asia today is the worst example of continuing family monopolies on political power. Yet not even the United States is free from this affliction. Former President George Bush Sr. wished his son to take charge of the country after he relinquished the presidency; hence behind the scenes he provided the opportunity to Bush Jr., the current president. These days, former President Bill Clinton is gunning for his wife to become the next president. He has provided her with contacts and a power base to fight the upcoming elections.
Yet the United States is a mature democracy; the Americans know when to stop. They may decide to end the dynastic politics in the next election.
Why is it becoming common to declare family members as the heir apparent?
South Asians will have to be content with dynastic rule in public places for a long time, it seems. All challenges and opposition to the dynastic rule are met with a strong hand. As in the case of Indira Gandhi, she removed all contenders for the prime minister's job from the limelight to make way for her son. Benazir Bhutto has done the same.
Today practically all serving politicians, legislators and others who occupy public offices in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh wish their kids to occupy these coveted places when they retire or die. Hence they manipulate the system in favor of their kin. A case in point is the elevation of the very young son of Rajesh Pilot, a deceased senior Congress Party leader in India, to the highest legislative post. There are many more examples of this type of behavior.
Sometimes multiple offspring of a leader create trouble. A few years back, in the state of Haryana in India, two sons of deceased octogenarian leader Devi Lal fought a bitter battle over the position of chief minister of the state. To eliminate such a possibility, the current chief minister of Tamil Nadu has declared his son the heir apparent. The same is true of the Shiv Sena party in Mumbai; the son has been declared the heir apparent.
Elsewhere the story is being repeated over and over again. In Pakistan, Bhutto is not the only example. An obtuse law is preventing former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from contesting elections and becoming prime minister again, but he has not given up the quest for power. Instead, he is gunning for his brother to take his place. Records show that 80 percent of the current contestants of legislative elections in Pakistan are landowners who were passed the baton of leadership by their family.
This kind of dynastic power grab also occurs in everyday life. If a father passes the ownership of a store, land or personal property to his children, it is a normal thing. What is abnormal is passing offices of public trust to the children.
This is happening in a big way in Bollywood, India's movie-making headquarters. All aging actors and actresses are passing the baton of movie stardom to their sons and daughters. It doesn't matter whether the offspring are capable or not. Funny is the word to describe the fact that Ambitabh Bachan, the matinee idol of the last 40 years, has had his not-so-delightful son promoted to an acting career in a big way.
Prior to Amitabh, all aging matinee idols were pushing their children -- talented or not. Children are also succeeding their parents in other areas of movie making such as writing screenplays, stories and songs or various aspects of production. This is limiting the induction of fresh talent into the field. The result is that Indian movies have become boring, lacking new ideas. That is one reason none of them has been able to obtain an Oscar nomination.
Businesses are not free from family dynastic rule either. A senior son always succeeds to the top job. This does not guarantee peace in the family, nor business success. The Shriram group broke up after the two stalwarts who built the company into a large corporation passed on the baton to their families. First the family members fought among themselves and then they split up the company into smaller pieces.
Ambanis did the same a few years back. Somehow Tatas has maintained its corporate cohesion. This is probably because neither the venerable J.R.D. Tata nor present leader Ratan Tata married. Hence when the top job becomes available, the most capable man in the rest of the family will assume it.
An important reason for the mediocre progress in a few of the large corporate houses in India is that they have failed to develop professional management systems. The owners are afraid of professional managers, least they take over when they are gone. But the opposite is true.
In the United States, all the founders of large corporations in the 19th and early 20th centuries handed over the company management to professional managers. They retained control through their presence as members of the company board. This is a great lesson for Indian business owners.
The dynastic handing over of power to children, whether they are capable or not, is here to stay in South Asia. This is leading to mediocre management whether it is in business, politics or social life. A change in favor of the most capable person is not possible as long as the country's political leadership is hell bent on promoting their kids. It is they who started this trend and it is they who must end this practice.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
