Renounce the zeitgeist of sympathy hereditary politics

“What is it that you want?” he asked

She said, “grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

“You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

This was a conversation that took place between Jesus and the mother of Zebedee’s sons, James and John, who were also among the 12 disciples of Jesus.

Their mother was persuading Jesus, the King of Jews, to grant her sons a special privilege for them to be co-rulers with Him in His kingdom.

There are accounts that exposit that the mother of Zebedee’s sons was called Salome and was a sister to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

This means that Salome was an aunt to Jesus. They hailed from the same family.

Jesus had the foreknowledge of what He was about to undergo.

He was alive to the fact that such a privilege also carried with it a requirement for great responsibility and service, as well as the bearing of great adversity.

By asking if they were ready to drink from the cup he was going to drink, He was questioning their ability to endure the same suffering he would undergo from His forthcoming arrest, trial, spiritual torment and eventual crucifixion.

When in their ignorance they glibly answered Him in the affirmative, He told them that bequeathing them those positions was not His to give, because that prerogative belonged to God His Father.

In other words, what Jesus told the sons of Zebedee and their mother, was Nemo dat quod non habet. This is also called the nemo dat rule. It means that no one gives what they do not have.

Our Kenyan rendition of the nemo dat rule has manifested itself in the form of hereditary politics. There has emerged a trend particularly in our by-elections, where when the holder of the office dies, his relatives become the automatic heirs of the said elective office.

To make this political arrangement more palatable, it has been christened ‘negotiated democracy’.

Begs the question, do the families and relatives of the deceased have the right, ability or power to exercise Nemo dat quod non habet?

Are these elective offices exclusively theirs to decide who in the deceased family should inherit the political office? And is it negotiated democracy, dictated democracy, or totalitarianism?

In today’s context, Jesus declined to engage in hereditary politics. He rebuffed the arrogance of privilege acquisition via lineage.

I submit that by Jesus conceding that the sons of Zebedee would indeed drink from His Cup, and not from The Cup, He was admonishing His disciples and His aunt that leadership is not a factor of the familiarity principle.

This is a psychological phenomenon also known as the mere-exposure effect, where people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them.

He was expressly telling them they could learn how to be leaders from their walk with Him, which also meant experiencing a certain degree of tribulation, persecution and suffering; but not expect to automatically rise to leadership without undergoing what He was about to endure.

Jesus was reprimanding them that leadership is not inherited. It takes perseverance, disappointments, adversity, toil and conscientiousness.

It is based on values, vision, integrity, decisiveness, empathy and focus that are nurtured and grounded prior to assuming the leadership mantle.

He was underscoring the fact that name recognition should not be the automatic springboard and qualifier to occupy spaces of leadership.

But sadly, this has not only been confined to our political space. Our churches are also notorious in this regard, where pastors pass on the church leadership to their sons.

Makes you wonder if they have read and internalised the teachings of Jesus in Mathew 20:20-27.

Early societies that practised hereditary politics did so because its rationale was order.

It was acceptable then because everyone knew his place and duties in this form of governance, and the monarch was sovereign over all that he ruled, not merely the land and objects on it, but everyone was his subject as well. Everything he lorded over, was his property.

Begs another question, is our Constitution subtly being repudiated into a monarchial form of governance?

Notwithstanding that we are a gambling nation, should we extend the bet that the odds of the best person to run our government, or lead our county or constituency, just so happens to live in the same house or share a lineage with the deceased MP, senator, governor or president?

Some may argue that in the free market, inheriting your father’s business is an acceptable practice.

While this is true, data shows that heredity is not a foolproof guide that favours successful continuation and that in fact, blood relatives tend to perform worse after the transition.

According to a study undertaken by Businessweek in 2010, only 40 per cent of US family-owned businesses turn into second-generation businesses, and only 13 per cent are passed down successfully to a third generation, and three per cent to a fourth generation or beyond.

So, to the proponents of hereditary politics, even in business circles where the practice is not frowned upon, the difference is that in business, the cost of the unsuccessful generation transition falls on those who make it. In politics, we all pay.

I dare to make a prediction that in the not-too-distant future, someone will propose a rule that will seek to prevent political power from being passed down through families.

But I submit that this is lazy thinking because the power that comes with those elective offices matters far more than the individuals who occupy them.

Therefore, what we need to do is to agitate for constitutional reforms that ensure that those offices wield very little power and influence so that it will not matter who the occupants are, rather than conferring in them too much power, that it doesn’t matter who occupies that office, inherited or not.

Finally, my unsolicited advice is to Wanjiku: The soldier does not fight because he hates what is in front of him, but he fights because he loves what is behind him; that is his country, his property, his mother and his woman.

Likewise, do not be duped to engage in struggles laced with personal hate masquerading as support for hereditary politics.

Instead, participate in crusades that safeguard that which is of priceless value to you.

A hereditary monarch is as absurd a position as a hereditary doctor or mathematician - Thomas Paine