Many Canadians have been celebrating the recent Canadian election that ended in a historic victory for Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party. His erstwhile opponent, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ran a campaign many political commentators accused of using scare tactics and playing to the fears and desires of his conservative base in the western areas of the country. Harper was further damaged by criticism over his treatment of refugees and his attempt to ban the niqab during certain ceremonies. Trudeau, on the other hand, ran a campaign that emphasized hope and emotional connections with voters.
However, there is an alarming circumstance of Trudeau’s life that raises questions about the forms of power distribution that have become popular across the world and in the U.S. democratic process. Trudeau is related to another Canadian prime minister — his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
Canada is not the only country that has shown an affinity for political dynasties. The United States has a history of dynasticism, from John Adams and John Quincy Adams, the Kennedys, the Longs and the Landrieu families in Louisiana to the recent phenomenon of the Bushes, Clintons and even the Pauls. The scary thing is Americans routinely accept dynastic politicians without properly scrutinizing the power and influence structures that continuously bring family members to those positions.
While I respect the rights of citizens to choose who they want to represent them, it is detrimental to public policy and the proper functioning of democracy when a small group of families holds so much control over certain regions or states. The democratic process breaks down when power and influence last over generations compared to the relatively small window of direct influence a normal politician has. The democratic process can further break down if families become more powerful than parties. The only way such an event could occur is if there is a consolidated power structure that has roots and influence in the past, present and future to the extent where the political party has less of a say than the individuals of that particular group.
Candidates from political families have inherent advantages such as name recognition and a familiarity with the political landscape that partially accounts for their success — but that is not the whole story. What is even more revealing is the combination of power and wealth these political families can attain and sustain that drive their recurring success in the political arena. For example, the Bush and Clinton families both have net worths that easily place them into the top 1 percent of Americans.
Why is it that the United States, a country supposedly functioning as a meritocracy, has such a propensity for electing heirs to political families into powerful positions in our government? After all, Thomas Jefferson himself said, “a hereditary aristocracy will change the form of our Government from the best to the worst in the world.” Why are the political institutions that continuously re-elect the anointed princes of these dynasties not scrutinized more effectively? The disconnect between the average American’s feelings about the perverse influence of nepotism and his tendency to elect political heirs reveals a lot about the ways money and power intertwine with family.
Sawan Patel is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.patel@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
