Monarchy in Democracy

This is something that's been bugging me lately, and since Steph kind of reminded me with the whole Bhutto thing, I thought I'd make a thread for it.

Now, this is something that happens a lot. I mean, I don't think its exactly "monarchy", but its...name recognition? I'm not sure if there's even a term for it. But it happens. Like in the US. You have Bush Sr and Jr. You might end up with another Clinton. Over here in India, we have the Congress party as the majority because Sonia Gandhi is the head of the party.

Congress, in India, is a political party and Parliament is the assembly.And the current family of Gandhis, the ones involved with Congress, are not even related to Mahatma Gandhi. Nehru's daughter wanted to marry some Parsi guy and Nehru got pissed off. So Gandhi let this dude use his last name and marry her. Rajiv, Indira, Sonia and Rahul, blood-wise have nothing to do with Mahatma Gandhi. However, Rajiv got sympathy votes and now, I expect Rahul will too. And because his last name is Gandhi.

In Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto's father was PM once. He was executed and she fled, but yeah. And apparently her son is now next in line (to get killed?).

There was even an Eddie Murphy movie. I forget the title, but Murphy's character wins the position of Senator because his whole name is Thomas Jefferson Johnson and campaigns as Jeff Johnson, a recently deceased senator. He goes around saying "Vote for Jeff Johson, The name you know!"

So what do you guys think of this? Is it right? Or is it kind of coincidence? Is it just propaganda that no one can do anything about? Is it in our nature to just go with names, branding people like pharmaceutical products?

I think people may feel more comfortable with a president who is closely related to a previous president. People assume that related people are very alike, and believe that by voting for a relative of a previous president, they'll know what to expect from this new president. (Just a guess, I may be wrong.)

As for the Gandhi thing: maybe people aren't aware of the fact that the Gandhi family involved with Congress aren't related to Mahatma Gandhi. The people may think they are indeed kin of Mahatma Gandhi, and kind of like I said earlier, support the Congress Gandhi because they're thought to be as great as Mahatma Gandhi?

I think this monarchy in democracy can be both right and wrong. It depends on the individual voter, and their reasons for voting for someone. If it's because of the family thing, it's wrong. But if the voter has really looked into the person and knows what they plan to do for their nation, it's right.

With Hillary Clinton I know a lot of people who want here because "Bill will be there."

That's one reason I don't one her there (besides the fact I disagree with some of her policies and I don't like how she never gives straight answers). It'll be like a presidential dynasty. In the late 80s we had Buch Sr. then Bill Clinton then Buch Jr. I don't want two decades of the same two families. Even though Bill did a great job with some things, I still wouldn't put a vote on his wife just because they are married. If Hillary wins the American people will expect her to do things the way Bill did them. Hillary is very much her own person, and Bill is involved with many other organizations, so I dunno how much of a role the "first man" (is that what they would call him?) would play. I do suspect a portion of her fanbase wants her to win for the connection.

I think if you are in a family with a politician in it you will be more likey to go into politics, you know if you are always hearing about it and everyone is so interasted by it.