Understanding dynastic politics in Pakistan - A Thread

1. In debates on social media, critics of the PTI are often accused of supporting 'dynastic' parties. The idea is that because the PPP and PML-N are headed by members of a single family, they are inherently undemocratic and incapable of articulating other interests.

2. While there are plenty of questions that can and should be asked about the extent to which these parties are internally democratic, I think it is important to remember that the problem with 'dynastic' politics extended beyond the party leadership.

3. Several years ago, Ali Cheema, Farooq Naseer, and I examined electoral data from 1970 to 2013 and found that, in Punjab, elections had been dominated by just 400 families. The paper can be accessed here: https://ideaspak.org/political_economy/dynastic-politics-in-punjab-facts-myths-and-their-implications/

4. In our paper, we defined 'dynastic' politicians as people with family members who had previously competed in elections. We found that members of these families were far more likely to win elections than candidates lacking these links/backgrounds.

5. While the paper itself doesn't go into this in that much detail, members of these political 'dynasties' were overwhelmingly drawn from the economic elite - owning land and/or being involved in business - and some had been in politics since the colonial period.

6. We also noticed that some families dropped out of politics even as new entrants made an appearance - often due to 'shocks' such as coups. One pattern we noticed was that 'new' entrants often used their position to enrich and entrench themselves as new 'dynasties'.

7. We also discovered that members of these dynasties were quite politically promiscuous. While some remained loyal to particular parties, many switched allegiances and sometimes, different members of the same family would be involved with different parties.

8. Put differently, there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that none of the major 'national' parties was free from 'dynastic' influence. The PTI was no exception to this, particularly by 2018 when it relied heavily on 'electables' - drawn from the political dynasties - to win

9. Why does all of this matter? Dynastic politicians endure precisely because of their electoral importance - their past history of political involvement allows them to amass the wealth, resources, and connections needed to be able to autonomously contest and win elections.

10. As I have argued elsewhere in my work, the power and influence of these 'electables' forces parties to choose between either courting them to win elections or relying on relatively untested and unknown candidates to mobilize votes against entrenched dynastic opponents.

11. This often locks parties into a race to the bottom. If they rely on electables, they win elections but are hijacked by dynastic politicians. If they eschew dynastic candidates, they run the risk of losing to them when they join rival parties.

12. Most parties have historically chosen to do the former. Indeed, this is a plausible explanation for why, despite all its rhetoric to the contrary, the PTI enthusiastically embraced electables in 2018 after losing badly in 2013.

13. The costs of this are clear. Relying on dynastic politicians forces parties to cater to their interests and also stymies the development of party structures, internal party democracy, and a politics based on ideological and programmatic appeals to the electorate.

14. It is also worth remembering that the power of dynastic politicians is reinforced by the interventions of the military establishment, which has historically used them to buttress its own dictatorships and destabilize/engineer 'democratic' governments.

15. There are broader social forces that can and are eroding dynastic politics. Urbanization reduces the power of dynastic politicians, and democratic competition can force parties to switch to more programmatic/ideological appeals for support.

16. It is important to remember that the problems with politics in Pakistan transcend individual parties. More time needs to be spent attacking an entrenched political elite that exercises influence across party lines, and the military establishment that helps keep them in power.