hereditary government and democracy

I've been pondering the issue of political families in a democracy for a number of years. It seems to me that functional democratic gov't might best be served by limiting the amount of members of a family serving in gov't.Monarchies, oligarchies, and any other aristocracy generally involves hereditary connection to office in gov't. Others can get in but then it is normally by acceptance from those people on the inside, unless the push from the populace is so great the leadership must accept them.In modern democracies, wealth tends to establish the ability to gain office, and wealth is concentrating in certain families. Once in power, and with money, certain families have achieved essentially hereditary relationships to gov't office. A Saudi official noted as much, in an approving way, not too long ago.It is easy enough to point to the Bushes, but the same goes for the Kennedys, and the Clintons (yes I am including husband and wife).I think the problem goes beyond just a "taste" issue, in that I think having families dominating gov't offices can have a negative effect. They are more likely to back each other up, or not officially question activities of one another.A good example is Bush Sr and Jr. Sr's policies were clearly opposing some of Jr's policies, and reports are that he is not happy with things like Iraq. If it was NOT his son, he might have thrown his weight against what has happened. But because it is his son he tends to hang back and not question anything.I don't think we are best served when familial issues can take precedence over gov't obligations and normal functions of office.Perhaps... at least on the national level... people who are related by blood or marriage should be prevented from holding representative office at the same time, and preferably should not be able to hold such offices until any original family member who held such an office is dead. At the very least I think this would be good for the office of the presidency. It would break up any possibility for a pseudo-monarchy.Given the million's of people living in the nation, that doesn't seem to be something which would hurt us in the area of having adequate representation. And given the number of possible career choices, is not an unfair restriction on any individual.Okay, cosmically it may suck that you don't get to be president because your dad was, but its not like you can't do something else to make a difference... even in gov't.Does anyone else have issues with powerful families holding multiple or nearly consecutive offices? Suggestions of how to deal with such issues?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

may be there is a gene coding for "seeking goverment office " we could find it and screen for its , as the saying goes "the ones who seek power are the ones you least want to gain it"really would you be happy being prevented from becoming prez just cos your grandfather was seems unfair , as you had no control of his life , and how far would you spread the relationship ties , would by marridge count ??

Knowing that it would prevent power consolidation to families, and work to ensure power stays with the people I wouldn't be upset not being president if my grandfather was. That's a good question. My thought was immediate family. Mother, father, kids. That would include marriage and adoption.Other than personal unfairness, do you see any problems for society/gov't by instituting such regs? Do you see any benefits?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have no issue with either powerful families or more than one member of a family being in government either at the same time or sequentially.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think this has been a serious problem in the past.I worry that it could become a problem if the conservatives are successful in abolishing the inheritance tax.

In pure theory I do not. Because in a theoretical sense everyone should be able to run for anything and anybody should have whatever representative they want.But the problem is that theory is different than practice. Its like the idea of pure laissez faire capitalism, eventually there are issues such as limited resources which crop up.In this case there is a limited number of top power positions. If dynasties are allowed to grow and dominate such positions then the people lose control.Another important issue is that our system is generally based on balance of power. When you have the figures of gov't coming from the same family you lose real checks on power.The 2000 election was a good example of problems one can find. And as I have suggested Bush Sr may be covering for Jr where he would not have otherwise. Preserving family can become superior to preserving the rights of others.Edited by holmes, : s problem

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

What you are talking about is concentration and abuse of power. Filial relationship seems to be an almost nonexistent part of the problem.The problem I see is that we do not teach history, do not have an open government, do not have an open media and basically do not do our job as citizens.It's nice to place the blame out side ourselves, blaim filial connections, term limits, the Fall, Original Sin, whatever is handy, but the basic issue is IMHO that being a democracy is hard work and we do not do a good job at being citizens.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think it has been a problem on a national level until recently. In the past families tended to wield local power, which I don't have as much problem with.Relatively recent events (last several years) have made wonder about the future and whether some guidelines/safeguards might be useful. You are right that allowing family wealth to accumulate without check will make this even worse.I have to admit it was listening to the Saudi prince explain how everyone really likes monarchies and that America has essentially reinvented it with the Bushes, got me even more jazzed on the topic.It seems to me if people are concerned with corporate influence in politics it familial influence ought to be just as important.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Whoa. You are reading something into my post that I did not mean. I was not trying to describe what the problem with society or this gov't is.I agree with the problems which you mention above and believe that they play a more crucial role in general.What I am discussing are issues that are beginning to crop up in a small way and may present greater problems in the future. I am raising the question if the populace should be concerned and put protections in the gov't now to prevent future excesses.I raised the point with nwr but I'll raise it with you as well. Corporate influence is considered an issue and so protections are (every once in a while) put into place. Why would familial influence not be the same thing?In a similar vein IIRC you seem to have a problem with the same party controlling three branches of gov't. Why wouldn't members from the same family controlling various offices of power which might grant advantage, not be a similar problem?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

How does it make a difference if the connection is family or ideology?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Perhaps that was a comment on the nature of the current Bush's presidenct, rather than on hereditary rule.If hereditary rule were a serious problem in the U.S.A., we should have expected Al Gore to have won in 2000.

george bush is george w. bush as john adams was to john q. adams.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

I can admit that for some ideology can create very tight bonds. However family can create tighter bonds, and allow for greater social coercion. There is an added necessity to act to protect a member in trouble, or advance another's interest.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No, it was a reply to a question regarding democracy, and the idea that monarchies in the mideast will have to change. This was because of Bush's growing commentary along those lines.The answer was that people desire strong central gov'ts and democracies eventually recreate them. He then pointed to the Bush family as an example of that, but not exclusively to them as the only example. ??? Why? Gore's father had not been president, and much more to the point, Gore did not have a brother running a state which could effect the outcome of the election. In large part 2000 turned on his brother's control of the electoral process of that state.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I did not claim that relatives in office was new. What I was saying is that the extent of powerful families holding, and so creating political machines, is new.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)