December 15, 2001 (IPS) — The election of George W. Bush as president eight years after his father left the White House, and Makiko Tanaka's induction as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier, proves that dynastic politics is not a preserve of Third World democracies and dictatorships.

Even industrialized democracies are not immune to the politics of dynasty. Although the Kennedys were the most famous Western political dynasty, the Bush election is the second instance in American history of a father-son presidency.

In the developing world, elected political dynasties have been rather common, a generally accepted feature of the political horizon. But of late, a new phenomenon is emerging, namely, the emergence of "republican dynasties" in authoritarian states.

It started with North Korea when after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.

Last year, after the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.

In Iraq too, Saddam Hussain is grooming his son, Qusai Hussain, to succeed him. He recently elevated his 35-year-old son to the membership of the policy-making Regional Command of the Baath Party.

All three instances are from highly centralized, one-party states where the long-standing leader ensured a smooth succession because of his total control over the state and party machinery.

Kim Il-Sung for instance ruled from 1945 to 1994, a total of 49 years, while Assad's rule lasted for 30 years, from 1970-2000. Saddam Hussain has exercised absolute power since 1975, after taking over in a Baath Party-backed military coup.

South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office.

Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office.

Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president.

Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.

India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.

These were Jawaharlal Nehru from 1947-1964, Indira Gandhi from 1966-1977 and again from 1980-1984, and Rajiv Gandhi ruled during 1984-1989. His widow, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, now heads the Congress Party and she is also leader of the opposition.

In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.

In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Such dynasties are quite common in American state and local politics as well.

Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.

American scholar Stephen Hess, who wrote America's Political Dynasties, talked of American political dynasties coming "in all sizes and flavors."

After the last U.S. presidential election, an Indian newspaper, Indian Express, gleefully wrote on November 8, 2000, that democratic "purists" and critics in India should stop "moaning about how we alone in the world have been loaded with politicians whose fathers or grandfathers, mothers or grandmothers, uncles or aunts, great-uncles or great-aunts or plain cousins also happen to be politicians."

The Times of India, writing in April this year in a run-up to state elections, termed India "a democracy of dynasties, for dynasties and by dynasties."

What are the causes behind the emergence of political dynasties, and why do they remain resilient for decades, sometimes generations, even in democratic societies?

Hard-and-fast answers may be difficult to find, but some explanations could be easier to understand.

Three seem logical. First, access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club.

Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.

Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted.

The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre.

Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

Whatever the cause, more often than not having a famous surname helps in politics, whether it is a socialist one-Party regime, a right-wing Republican presidency or an Islamic republic, or, for that matter, just a plain old traditional democracy.