The reason why UN membership and political culture worldwide favor republicanism lies in what some African and foreign political scientists have identified with the five world revolutions that changed the nature of the relationship between the leaders and the led in most parts of the world. Up to the Glorious Revolution headed by Oliver Cromwell, for many Westerners man could not live in a society without a king. As in all medieval Europe the political idea about the Divine Rights of Kings was paramount; and both society and church, in that pre-modern era, developed intellectual rationalization for its maintenance.

Since the 1680’s when Cromwell and his revolution failed with the restoration of monarchy, the idea of a republic without any divinely sponsored ruler lingered on and gradually took root in many places. The American Revolution of 1776 brought the ideas of Cromwell into reality and the French Revolution which came almost thirteen years later, took the matter to a higher level. The Russian Revolution, which revolved around the ideas of Karl Marx and Engels , helped create a new Russia where monarchy was overthrown and a new political order came into being. Driven by an ideology which questioned many of the philosophical and social assumptions of monarchy, and determined to bring about justice among human beings, the Russian Revolution took the British, the American and the French revolutions to elevated heights. Not only was kingship abolished, but property, which is highly valued in the realm of American economic and political thought, was taken away from the custodians of lands. The Iranian Revolution was the last in the series. In that Middle Eastern territory the late Shah was overthrown and a new ruling order came into being. These rulers established the power of the clergy known as the Ayatollahs and restored the power and influence of religion in a way that reversed the growing trend dating back to the American and French revolutions. In these earlier challenges to monarchy the state and church no longer dictate the way things are done in society and culture. Monarchy lost its divine justifications and the state was seen as the instrument of the people.

 This was one of the sources of inspiration for Abraham Lincoln ’s definition of government as a political vehicle of the people, for the people, and by the people. With the Iranian Revolution we witnessed the fifth major revolution against monarchy and a return to pre-West Phalian tendencies. Real or imagined, one could here argue that over the last four hundred years humanity has come to accept the concept of kingship as a longer philosophical and social defensible and acceptable. For this and other reasons those who believe in the hierarchy of men and women in society have transferred their loyalties and political ambitions to the notion of dynasties. This is the root cause of political investments of many families in the capture, maintenance and preservation of political power. This political preoccupation is beyond land and clime. It is not only visible in the developing parts of the world but also in the modern Western societies. It is to these issues we now turn to.

 Long live dynasties, is the new mantra of ambitious political families. If we begin our story in the United States we see a pattern that goes back to the Founding Fathers. Most American biographers would confess that the end of kingship did not necessarily put an end to dynasties. Even under republicanism certain families have tried to perpetuate themselves through political succession in the capture, maintenance and preservation of power. The children and descendants of John Adams became the first Union family to brag about its successful capture of the highest position of the land through father and son. This is to say, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams the only other family that came close to that dream was the Roosevelt family. Teddy Roosevelt and his nephew Franklin Delano were  political families from Ohio , one of the few states that gave America more presidents than the rest combined. But even in Virginia and Ohio where many presidents and distinguished Senators and generals came from certain families that nurtured such dreams failed to see them come true. There are the stories of Adlai Stevens and his descendants as well as those of the Rockefellers.

 But in investigating this phenomenon one must note the ironies and paradoxes of political ambition within and between families in American society. The pattern established by the Adams continued to inspire and galvanize many other American families in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. During the Cold War the Kennedy family clashed with the political ambitions of other dynastically motivated groups. While running for the presidency of the U.S. John F. Kennedy helped bring into fruition the long- held dream and ambition of his father Joseph . Ranged against the ambitions of the President Richard Nixon ’s first running mate, Lodge George, a member of an established New England family within the Republican Party, he also checkmated the ambitions of Adlai Stevens , the only Democratic Party candidate who secured his party nomination twice but lost the elections. His election launched the Kennedy dynasty and both his brothers and nephews profited from his presidency and assassination. These are paradoxes and ironies of the political process. Not only did John put his younger brother Teddy into the Senate where he had served for over forty-five years and has no intention of slowing down, but his other brother Robert lived long enough before his assassination to be Attorney General and Senator from New York. This example certainly inspired the Clintons who in many ways read, understood and copied profusely what John said and did. Not only did President Bill Clinton celebrated his boyhood encounter with President Kennedy at the White House but he also lived to see his own wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton traveled the path of political dynasty-making, cleared by the sweat, tears and energies of the Kennedys.

 Again while talking about the caricature and contradiction in terms of political ambitions let us complete the American story by  the rise and claims of the Bush family. Coming from both New England and Texas this America family comes closest to the achievements of the Adams family in the early days of the American Republic. Like the Adams they too have a father and a son. What is remarkable about their claims is the fact that he did not do to Clinton what John Adams had done to Jefferson . As history tells it, when he lost the elections to his rival, he John Adams failed to accept defeat with dignity; rather he left town before the handing over of power to his successor. Anger and pain apparently conspired to dull his brain. This poor example had since been corrected. George Bushsenior knew history and treated Bill Clinton as a younger American- almost like his son. Interestingly, as an irony of history, Bush’s son, young George rose to the presidency thanks to the fact that his brother was the governor of Florida , that state whose history in the books on world elections would be always remembered for its role and place in the determination of outcome of the 2000 elections. Through this strange sequence of historical events the Bush family not only outperformed the Adams in the sense that they got father and son as presidents but they also ruled as governors of two of the most significant states in the Union. The sitting President Bush served as governor of Texas and his brother served in Florida . Tracing the stories and fortunes of other American families at lower ranks of government could cover numerous pages. In the interest of time and space let us look at this phenomenon of dynasty in Africa .

Political dynasty emerged in Africa during the anti-colonial struggle. Those leaders who led the campaign against the colonial powers were often perceived as charismatic figures. Like Christ they embodied charisma and captured the hearts and minds of their followers. All those who are numbered as members of a political dynasty in Africa came through this route. In West Africa , there are only a few striking cases. They are Albert Margai of Sierra Leone who succeeded his brother, Milton Margai , and younger Cabral who took power following the assassination of Amilcar Cabral of Guinea-Bissau. These two men benefited from this political inheritance but their claims to power were short-lived. Albert Margai lost in an election against the APC (All People’s Party), led by Siaka Stevens almost forty years ago. And Cabral ruled over Guinea-Bissau a few years later before he was overthrown in a military coup d’état. . The latest story of dynastic claims from these two families was in Sierra Leone where the son of AlbertMargai contested the last elections without success. To the best of my knowledge none of the political heavy weights such as Kwame Nkrumah , Sekou Toure, Leopold Sedar Senghor, Ahmadou Ahidjo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, or Houphouet Boigney left any political dynasties behind.

The story is slight different in Eastern Africa where the latest elections in Kenya have many bits and pieces about the rise and fall of political dynasties. As in West Africa , the Kenyattas, the Odinga-Odingas, the Mois and the Kibakis belong to the generation of the Founding Fathers and their success stories have elevated them to the stature of political titans. However, the political fortunes of this group in East Africa differ from their West African counterparts only in the sense that there was some continuity after independence for certain families, but the democratic tide is beginning to bring about a political Tsunami. As disappointed as we are over the senseless political killings in Kenya as a result of alleged election rigging by President Kibaki , though the Keyattas, the Mois and the Kibabis may have flourished for the last forty years the gradual and increasingly rapid revolution of rising aspirations is changing all that. In this election the three sons of former President Arap Moi were badly defeated among his own Kalenjen people. In the last general elections which brought President Kibaki to power several years ago, Jomo Keyatta ’s son lost power as Moi’ chosen successor.

What the latest elections in Kenya mean is that political dynasties are endangered species and Africans are increasingly becoming allergic to such tendencies given the violent riots that had claimed many lives in this election. Perhaps the West African attitude has spread far and wide around the continent and Africans are beginning to prefer individual talent and capacity over inherited charisma turned into traditional patrimonial order. This fact remains that kingship is also dead in Africa but political dynasties still persist in certain quarters. Though the modern political animal in Africa does not harbor all loyalties to African kings, there are still digs that celebrate the powers of old and if they cannot secure such powers politically in the modern state, they aspire to enjoy the full benefits of social recognition and popular following.

Those who support dynasty do not welcome time limit because it jeopardizes individual and family interests. Dictatorship strengthens and magnifies the power of an individual in a given society, while dynasty strengthens and magnifies a particular family in a given nation. Is there any difference? It is ironic that Benazir Bhutto family still maintains the dynasty even though this family is known to work towards a democratic tradition which gives room to every body to compete for high political positions. If this is true why then should the leader of the Pakistanpeople’s party be transferred from father to daughter and daughter to son? Big contraction from what we were told she stood for.

In conclusion, let me regurgitate by saying that kingship is almost dead worldwide and republicanism is towering the political landscape of most countries. However, it should be stated categorically that political dynasties world over have the same psycho-historical and psycho-political roots. Those families that nurture them are humans with ambition and they know fully well that political power is the greatest magnifying mirror. To count is to be politically magnified. Those of us who are democratically committed but nurtured no politically motivated dynasty ambition invest heavily in our ballot and for this reason wish and fight for free and fair elections. We tolerate those with dynastic ambitions only when they can be judged fairly by the contents of their character and not by their pie-in-the-sky rhetorics. Whenever we have politicians who talk straight and deliver the goods in a democratic society, then we can sing kingship is dead, long live political men and women of change and social justice.

Peace, Love, Justice to All Humanity. Happy New Year.  

Robot  Villager

# 1 var sbtitle6421=encodeURIComponent(Kingship is...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 01.01.2008 03:50

The Pledge  Villager

# 2 Thanks for this masterpiece, very educative and well researched. The leadership problem in Africa will begin to fizzle out if and when our leaders are allowed to emerge through democratic processes in the absence of dynasties, political power houses/ families, godfatherism and Ph.d holders in election rigging and assasination. Posted by The Pledge| 01.01.2008 10:26

Palamedes  Villager

# 3 Madam, kingship is a primitive form of government and it died, in part, due to secularism. Kings and queens commandeered authority on the back of claim that they were direct descendants and sole representatives of god on earth, and when their subjects began doubting their claims and authories, it was to be the beginning of the demise of kingship. As for dynasty in Nigeria, it has so far failed simply because--among other things--Nigerian families don't encourage continuity in their footsteps. One might ask, were are the sons and daughters of Zik, Awolowo, Belewa to mention but a few. Even in business, continuity is rare to see: I know of a Nigerian family that were very wealthy merchants (millionaires by today's standard) in the 19th century but, today, there is no trace of the business—it died with the man who had started it. Dynasty is a modern attempt to reproduce kingship but it is one that will never succeed in a democracy, because in democracy, continuity cannot be guaranteed. And in order for dynasty to survive, it needs continuity. The Kennedy family (USA), Ghandhi (India) and Bhutto ( Pakistan) dynasties are all history really—living on past fame and glory that is unlikely to return again. The other enemy of dynasty is the assassin's bullet. Which one (of democracy or assassination) has been the most effective in destroying dynasty is difficult to tell. In conclusion, dynasty (whether business or political) is difficult to sustain in modern times. In business you have the corporate raiders--likened to the assassins of political dynasties. Posted by Palamedes| 01.01.2008 11:22

britroyal1  Villager

# 4 A most captivating and educating read. However allow me to point out that Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt hailed from the state of New York not Ohio. Cheers! Posted by britroyal1| 01.01.2008 22:42

Ukay  Villager

# 5 Thanks Bros, note taken. Posted by Ukay| 04.01.2008 21:44