The very idea of a dynasty goes against the basic concept of democracy. And yet, we see the possible emergence of one in that bastion of democracy, the United States. Indeed, most democracies seem to be pre-disposed to political dynasties. The Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Bandaranaikes-Kumaratunga in Sri Lanka, the Bhuttos in Pakistan, the Sheikh Mujib and Zia-ur Rahman families in Bangladesh, the Sukarnos of Indonesia, the Aquinos in the Philippines. In Nepal, we didn't need democratic dynasties because we had the monarchy. But now that we are ten years into democracy, this is as good a time as any to start our own.
In fact, the dynasty-making potential of democracies is most evident not at the apex of the national power structure, but at the grassroots. Power families at the local level have always elected members of their clan to the political seat of that constituency. The prime example of this is the Gwalior royal family in India, who have invariably managed to elect scions to office after India became independent.
Al Gore himself is the son of a long-serving senator. The pedigree of George W Bush is even grander-he is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, brother of another governor, and is related to at least 15 presidents in one way or another. Then there are the true-blue political dynasties of the New World-the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Tafts, the Longs-you name a president and there will be a daddy or brother who served in high office. The British have simplified matters by a system of hereditary peers who sniff snuff to stop themselves from snoring in the Upper House.
It is the charisma of the name, the brand-recognition of the political family. And as we know, branding is as important in democracies as it is in the cut-throat world of corporate marketing. An election symbol is as valuable as Nike's swoosh. Widows stepping into the political shoes of their dead husbands is so common the world over that there is an academic study of the phenomenon entitled "Over My Dead Body". When it is so common, democratic dynasties may not be a bad thing after all. Devils you know are better than those you don't.
Post-democratic Nepal is blessed with its own political dynasties. We have our own Adhikaris, Bhandaris, Mainalis, Singhs and Nidhis, but the First Family of Nepali Democratic Dynasty is undoubtedly that of the Koiralas. Political identity is defined in terms of Koiralas-if you are neither a staunch loyalist nor a severe critic, then you ain't nobody in Nepali politics. Whether you are Sher Bahadur Deuba or Comrade Prachanda you have to blackguard a Koirala to establish your political identity. You either have to swear at a Koirala or swear by one.
Krishna Prasad Koirala (or Pitaji, as he is almost always referred to) laid the foundation of this political clan. A small-time government contractor during the rule of Chandra Sumsher (1901-29), he created history by sending a parcel containing the tattered clothes of a bhariya (hill-porter) to 'awake' His Highness to the poverty stalking the land. Little did he know that this attention-grabbing mail would end up delivering three of his sons to the prime ministerial throne.
Matrika, the eldest son, became the first commoner to become prime minister of post-Rana Nepal. BP Koirala became the first prime minister to be democratically elected. Taking the instances of firsts even further, the youngest of the Koirala brothers, Girija, became the first prime minister to be elected under the new 1990 constitution. Love them, hate them, but ignore them you can't-Koiralas are the democratic dynasty of this country.
Unfortunately for Girijababu, charges of nepotism and relatives with feet of clay have stuck over the years. The charge that Girija may be fronting for his cousin Sushil ignores the reality that this Bhole Baba from Banke is a behind-the-scenes operator and lacks the ?lan needed to head the clan. Ms Clean Shailaja could have been a flag-bearer, but she has already let several opportunities pass. Could it be that Shailaja doesn't believe in dynasties?
Other Koirala names being bandied about-Nona, Shekhar, Jyoti, or even Sujata-do not carry the hint of a promise with their names, largely because almost all of them take themselves far too seriously. Prakash had a fighting chance, but he threw it away by associating himself with Marichman Singh during the days of the Jan Andolan. These days, this son of BP is better known as the father of Manisha Koirala. Speaking of whom, now that Sawal Das Crore Ka has bombed at the ratings, maybe Manisha will be inclined to come home?
There may yet be a dark horse. Someone not tarnished in the dirty vat of Kathmandu politics. And that precisely could be his advantage. In an environment where politics and politicians have become objects of disdain, Dr Shashank Koirala carries the credibility of a respected professional. An eminent Nepali eye surgeon who is as good a manager as he is a doctor. And being an eye doctor, could he not also have a vision for the country? Like his father, BP, Shashank considers politics to be a mission, respects the legacy of his family name, and likes to quote philosophers. (Immanuel Kant's famous proposition "Reality is seldom what appears to be" seems to be his favourite.) Apart from all that, he has been the permanent host to his uncle in Kathmandu whenever Girija is out of Baluwatar.
Poor Deuba is apparently wasting his ammunition attacking his former mentor. The senior Koiralas are not his rivals. Sushil is probably a red herring. Shailaja is too straightforward. Koirala loyalists have an ace up their sleeves-the grandson of Pitaji. The forthcoming Pokhara Convention will not be the end of tussle for the leadership of Nepali Congress. The arithmetic being what it is, a clear victory for Girija there is a foregone conclusion. But the real competition for succession in the ruling party will begin in right earnest only after Pokhara. That may be when the dynasty strikes back, and when it does, who knows, it may finally have a fresh face.
