THE DEMOCRACY DILEMMA
The rise of hereditary democracy, as critics term it, poses a fundamental challenge to egalitarian ideals.
While dynasties project stability, their dominance risks entrenching inequality and stifling competition. Younger leaders from non-elite backgrounds struggle to access funding or media visibility, perpetuating a closed system.
According to the Philippines Center for Investigative Journalism, at least two dozen political dynasties were seeking to secure at least five seats each in the May 2025 elections. With such dominance, policymaking risks becoming a battleground for elite factions rather than a forum addressing broader public concerns.
This phenomenon is far from unique to Southeast Asia. Across the globe, hereditary politics thrives in both emerging and established democracies.
In the United States, names like the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons have shaped national politics for decades, while Canada’s Trudeaus and France’s Le Pens underscore how familial legacies permeate Western democracies. In India, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has dominated Congress Party politics for generations.
Globally, the phenomenon has drawn scrutiny for perpetuating power imbalances. Hereditary politics undermines meritocracy, as governance becomes less about collective welfare and more about maintaining dynastic control.
In Southeast Asia, as in the West, voters oscillate between frustration with elite entrenchment and resignation to its inevitability. The key difference lies in institutional resilience, with stronger institutions in established democracies often mitigating some, if not most, of the corrosive effects of dynastic rule.
Source: CNA
