<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">46</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Social Sciences Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">gssr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2520-0348</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2616-793X</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">393971</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/gssr.2022(VII-III).06</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="manuscript">00</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">4440</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Family Affiliation and Electoral Politics in District Charsadda: A Case Study of 2013 General Elections</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Ibrahim</surname>
      <given-names>Muhammad</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Khan</surname>
      <given-names>Shahbaz</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="3">
    <name>
      <surname>Bashir</surname>
      <given-names>Nadia</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Pakistan Studies, Kohat University of Science and Technology</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Lecturer</named-content>
    <addr-line>KP</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Pakistan Study Centre, University of Peshawar</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Associate Professor</named-content>
    <addr-line>KP</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff3">
    <label>3</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Chairperson, Department of Pakistan Studies, Edwards College Peshawar</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>KP</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Muhammad Ibrahim, Lecturer, Department of Pakistan Studies, Kohat University of Science and Technology, KP, Pakistan.</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>09</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>09</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>20</day>
  <month>12</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>7</volume>
  <issue>3</issue>
  <season>Summer</season>
  <fpage>51</fpage>
  <lpage>65</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>20</day>
      <month>12</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2022</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/article/family-affiliation-and-electoral-politics-in-district-charsadda-a-case-study-of-2013-general-elections"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/JFKJ8APgha.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/JFKJ8APgha.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>This paper explores family affiliation as a determinant in describing voting behaviour in NA-8 Charsadda. The study argues that family affiliation is an important determinant of electoral politics in district Charsadda. In order to predict the electoral consequences of electoral behaviour in the universe, a survey has been conducted using questionnaire as a tool of data collection. In this regard, a sample of 304 respondents has been selected through multistage, random and systematic sampling from the voter list. Analysis has been made via descriptive statistics including frequency distribution and percentage and inferential statistics including the Chi-square test and probability value. The primary data reveal that (67.9%) of the respondents supported the view that the electoral preferences have been made on the basis of family affiliation in district Charsadda in the 2013 general elections.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>District Charsadda</kwd>
  <kwd>General Elections 2013</kwd>
  <kwd>Family Affiliations</kwd>
  <kwd>Biradari</kwd>
  <kwd>Voting Behaviour</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>588</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>Family affiliation, family ties, biradari, and kinship all these terminologies convey the same sense. This paper is going to focus on the determinant of family affiliations in the electoral politics of NA-8 District Charsadda. Family affiliation is also one of the decisive determinants in the electoral studies of voting behaviour. (Birnir 2007, 34) According to Ellen Lust and Tarek Masoud the factor of the family affiliation or kinship is playing a crucial role in the voting behaviour of Jordan. Accordingly, about 87 percent of the peoples surveyed in 2007 have preferred to vote those candidates who have a personal close relationship with them. (Ellen Lust and Tarek Masoud n.d.)</p><p>The determinant of the family affiliation is also playing a key role in Africa. Here the contesting candidates get in contact with the head or lead of the family for getting his political support in the form of stamping the ballot in his favour. (Morrison, Are African Voters Really Ethnic or Clientelistic? Survey Evidence from Ghana 2008) In the case of Nigeria, family affiliation is too important in shaping voting preferences. The decisive role is to be played by the head of the family as whom or which political party to be preferred to vote followed by the rest of the members of his family. (Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim September 2015), Max Visser had given the name of the verbal community to the family affiliations in which the voting behaviour is influenced directly without any delay by family ties, friends, peers, co-workers and neighbours etc. (Visser Spring 1996).</p><p>In Pakistan, the factor of family affiliation is also important in moulding electoral behaviour. According to Mughees Ahmed in Pakistan voting behaviour is impacted more by the Biradari system which is based on familial relationship. Accordingly, the Biradari system seems to play a decisive role as like the pressure groups in Punjab which is important for democracy. (M. Ahmed 2011) In Pakistan, the Biradari system is applicable not only in the elections on the national level, but it plays a prominent role in the local body elections as well. According to Fozia Naseem the biradari system even play a stronger role in voting behaviour than partisanship. This is because the local bodies&apos; elections are contested only on the basis of Biradarism in Pakistan. (Naseem, Social system influences Political System A comparative study of sub-continent Jan 2011), The consequences of the research survey conducted in District Layyah for finding the voting behaviour in the 2013 general election demonstrates that the Biradarism is playing an explicit role in moulding public voting behaviour more than any other determinant. (Faisal Azeez, Biradrism As Stronger Determinant Of Voting Behavior; Exploring The Voting Behavior Of People Towards Different Political Parties During Election 2013 in District Layyah Dec. 2014) Andrew determines biradari with reference to the 1993 elections in the Punjab. He posits that biradari is important more in northern and central Punjab than any other areas in the province. (Wilder 1999, 177-187) In family politics, others have claimed that in Pakistan family affiliations have played a distinguished role in giving a heavy mandate to the party or candidate, which is supported by the elders of the family. (Jamil Ahmed Sheikh Dec-31 -2015 )</p><p>In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the determinant of family affiliation is too important, especially in rural areas. Shakeel Ahmad determines voting behaviour in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from 1988-1999. He states that biradari is important only in northern and southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa more particularly in rural areas. (Ahmad 2010, 328) The determinant of family affiliation is also important in district Charsadda. Most of the electoral decisions are made by the head of the family. (Shah, Determinants of Turnout in Elections: A Case Study of 2008 General Elections in District Charsadda Summer 2015)</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Hypothesis</title>
<p>Voting Behaviour is determined by family affiliation in district Charsadda.</p><p><break/></p><p>Research Questions</p><p>1.	How much the peoples of district Charsadda are politically active?</p><p>2.	How far family affiliations are responsible for determining the voting behaviour in district Charsadda?</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Methodology</title>
<p>As conducting research for finding the voting behaviour in electoral studies is empirical research which is mostly comprised quantitative, analytical and comparative methods. For covering the theoretical and literature framework, the researcher has accumulated secondary data in the form of books, journals, and published reports of elections. Similarly, for covering the empirical data a questionnaire has been developed. The respondents for filling the questionnaires have been selected from the voters&apos; list. The voters&apos; lists were selected with the lottery method also known as &apos;random sampling&apos; while the respondents from the voter list were selected with the multi-stage systematic sampling. Then the data was framed, tubulised, categorized and finally analyzed on the basis of various independent variables.</p><p><break/></p><p>Criteria for Operational Measurement of Electoral Variables</p><p>The electoral study of the voting behaviour is confined to the operational measurement of family affiliations. This determinant has been asked in four different questions. These questions have been analyzed on the basis of various independent variables including gender, age, literacy, monthly income, profession and area as rural/urban. Then each question has been interpreted in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) that apply the Chi-square test and the p-value, which is given out along with the frequencies and percentages of each analysing variable. The average percentage of every voting determinant has been calculated which points out the applicability of all five voting determinants. The criteria used for measuring the extent of application of the determinants are given as under:</p><p>?	“Limited Extent” is the average percentage of 40% and below.</p><p>?	“Some Extent” is the average percentage of 60% and below.</p><p>?	“Greater Extent” is the average percentage of 60% and above.</p><p><break/></p><p>Sampling Method</p><p>The universe of the study is confined to the constituency of NA-8 in District Charsadda. This universe includes all the registered voters in NA-8 for the general election of 2013. The total number of the registered voters, according to the voters’ lists, of the constituency of NA-8 is 329029. This number becomes 48-49% of the total registered voters in two constituencies in District Charsadda. The number 329029 consisted of 193003 males and 136026 females. In NA-8 there are total twenty-four Union Councils in which four are urban and the remaining 20 are rural. From the entire UCs&apos; representative sampling was obtained through random sampling.</p><p><break/></p><p>Sample Size</p><p>For conducting the research work the size of the representative sample was composed of 304 voters which were selected on the basis of multi stages/phases sample techniques given as under:</p><p><break/></p><p>PHASE 1: There are total 24 Union Councils in the constituency of NA-8. In these UCs there are four urban and 20 rural. Two Union Councils from each rural and urban area have been brought under consideration that were selected by random method. The names of these Union Councils are Ziam, Kangra, Municipal Committee (MC) Tangi and MC I Shabqadar. The first two are rural UC’s and the remaining two are urban.</p><p><break/></p><p>PHASE 2: In every UC there are various lists that are also known as blocs and each having a specific bloc code was randomly selected. In the second phase the total 304 voters were equally distributed in rural and urban UCs&apos; which come to be 152 for rural and the same for urban as well. These 152 voters were further divided in their respective urban and rural union councils consisting of 76 voters from each UC. Then the 76 voters comprised an equal number of male and female respondents that is 38. These voters, from each list, in the same UC, have been selected by multi-stage systematic sampling. The first voter in each list and every UC was selected while using the random numbers table.</p><p>In all the 304 respondents a considerable number of voters did not respond or did not return the questionnaire. A total number of the 258 questionnaires completed in all respects were successfully returned. Among all these respondents, a prominent number of the males, youngsters having age 18-30, illiterates, the sorry group of monthly income, the others&apos; group of the profession and the rural respondents are included.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Family Affiliation and its Operational Measurement</title>
<p>The study of the familial affiliations as a voting determinant argues that family affiliations are applicable to a greater extent (67.9%) in the electoral politics of NA-8 district Charsadda. The operationalization of the theory of family affiliation in light of the empirical data collected in NA-8. Family affiliations as a voting determinant have been analysed in the light of various close-ended questions. The close-ended questions that have been asked from the respondents are mentioned as under.</p><p>1.	In the 2013 general elections up to which extent</p><p>you have casted your precious vote according to the decision of the head of the family?</p><p>2.	In the 2013 general elections up to which extent you have casted your precious vote on the basis of family connections?</p><p>3.	In the 2013 general elections up to which extent you have casted your vote on the basis of family disputes?</p><p>4.	In the 2013 general elections up to which extent you have casted your vote for the resolution of family disputes?</p><p>These questions are analyzed on the basis of various independent variables including gender, age, literacy, monthly income, profession and area. The details of the analysed questions along with the frequencies and percentages are tabulated as under.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-5">
  <title>Family Affiliations and Obedience to the Head of the Family</title>
<p><bold>Table 1.</bold> Gender
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Table 1</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Male</p> </th><th> <p>54</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>141</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>38.3%</p> </th><th> <p>29.1%</p> </th><th> <p>5.0%</p> </th><th> <p>27.7%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Female</p> </th><th> <p>54</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>10</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>117</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>46.2%</p> </th><th> <p>27.4%</p> </th><th> <p>8.5%</p> </th><th> <p>17.9%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>108</p> </th><th> <p>73</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>60</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.848,
P-Value= 0.183           </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>A maximum number of the female respondents (46.2%) followed by
the male respondents (38.3%) showed full political obedience to the head of the
family. This shows that females have more supported family affiliations as a
voting determinant as compare to males. The Chi-square test provides an
insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Age Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>18-30</p> </th><th> <p>55</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>122</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>45.1%</p> </th><th> <p>23.0%</p> </th><th> <p>9.0%</p> </th><th> <p>23.0%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>31-40</p> </th><th> <p>23</p> </th><th> <p>25</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>70</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>32.9%</p> </th><th> <p>35.7%</p> </th><th> <p>2.9%</p> </th><th> <p>28.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>41 &amp;
   Above</p> </th><th> <p>30</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>4</p> </th><th> <p>12</p> </th><th> <p>66</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>45.5%</p> </th><th> <p>30.3%</p> </th><th> <p>6.1%</p> </th><th> <p>18.2%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>108</p> </th><th> <p>73</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>60</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 8.733,
P-Value= 0.189           </italic></p> <p><break/></p> <p>In the case of age consideration greater number of respondents
having age 41 and above (45.5%) sharply followed by respondents of the age
group 18-30 (45.1%) have strongly followed the elders of the family while
casting the ballot. This shows that the greater is the age the greater will be
the obedience to the familial head. Chi-square test provides an insignificant
p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p> <p><bold>Table 3. </bold>Literacy
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Table 3</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top">  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Literate</p> </td><td> <p>42</p> </td><td> <p>37</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>39</p> </td><td> <p>128</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>32.8%</p> </td><td> <p>28.9%</p> </td><td> <p>7.8%</p> </td><td> <p>30.5%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Illiterate</p> </td><td> <p>66</p> </td><td> <p>36</p> </td><td> <p>7</p> </td><td> <p>21</p> </td><td> <p>130</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>50.8%</p> </td><td> <p>27.7%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>16.2%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </td><td> <p>108</p> </td><td> <p>73</p> </td><td> <p>17</p> </td><td> <p>60</p> </td><td> <p>258</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 11.262,
P-Value= 0.010</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>So for as literacy is concerned a heavy number of the illiterate
respondents (50.8%) followed by the literates (32.8%) have stamped the ballot
in following the decisions of the familial head. This shows that the greater is
the literacy the independent will be the voting decisions. The Chi-square test
provides a significant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 4. </bold>Monthly Income
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>15000 &amp; Below</p> </th><th> <p>34</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>47.2%</p> </th><th> <p>29.2%</p> </th><th> <p>4.2%</p> </th><th> <p>19.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>16000 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>16</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>26.8%</p> </th><th> <p>39.0%</p> </th><th> <p>7.3%</p> </th><th> <p>26.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Sorry</p> </th><th> <p>63</p> </th><th> <p>36</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>145</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>43.4%</p> </th><th> <p>24.8%</p> </th><th> <p>7.6%</p> </th><th> <p>24.1%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>108</p> </th><th> <p>73</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>60</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value=
6.715, P-Value= 0.348           </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Maximum number of the
respondents having monthly income 15000 and below (47.2%) followed by the group
which have not mentioned their monthly income (43.4%) have full trust in
following their elders. This shows that the lower is the monthly income the greater
will be the political trust in their elders. The Chi-square test provides an
insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Professional Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top">  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Government
  Servant</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>33</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>30.3%</p> </td><td> <p>30.3%</p> </td><td> <p>9.1%</p> </td><td> <p>30.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Private Service
  Sector</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>4</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>12.5%</p> </td><td> <p>50.0%</p> </td><td> <p>12.5%</p> </td><td> <p>25.0%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Businessmen
  &amp; Shopkeepers</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>11</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>9.1%</p> </td><td> <p>27.3%</p> </td><td> <p>9.1%</p> </td><td> <p>54.5%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>House Wife</p> </td><td> <p>47</p> </td><td> <p>26</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>14</p> </td><td> <p>96</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>49.0%</p> </td><td> <p>27.1%</p> </td><td> <p>9.4%</p> </td><td> <p>14.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Others</p> </td><td> <p>49</p> </td><td> <p>30</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>28</p> </td><td> <p>110</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>44.5%</p> </td><td> <p>27.3%</p> </td><td> <p>2.7%</p> </td><td> <p>25.5%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </td><td> <p>108</p> </td><td> <p>73</p> </td><td> <p>17</p> </td><td> <p>60</p> </td><td> <p>258</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 21.483,
P-Value= 0.044</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>In case of profession greater
number of the businessmen and shopkeepers respondents (54.5%) has no trust in
the political decisions of the heads of the families. This group is followed by
the professionals of the private service sector (50.0%) that are satisfy to
some extent with the political decisions of the head of the family. This shows
that majority of the businessmen and shopkeepers have lack of confidence in the
political decisions of the elders. The Chi-square test provides a significant
p-value.</p> <p><break/></p>  <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Area Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Rural</p> </th><th> <p>80</p> </th><th> <p>36</p> </th><th> <p>4</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>133</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>60.2%</p> </th><th> <p>27.1%</p> </th><th> <p>3.0%</p> </th><th> <p>9.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Urban</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>37</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>47</p> </th><th> <p>125</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>22.4%</p> </th><th> <p>29.6%</p> </th><th> <p>10.4%</p> </th><th> <p>37.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>108</p> </th><th> <p>73</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>60</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>41.9%</p> </td><td> <p>28.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.6%</p> </td><td> <p>23.3%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value=
48.881, P-Value= 0.000         </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>So for as area is concerned
greater number of the rural respondents (60.2%) are satisfied with the heads of
the families and have voted greatly in their obedience. In the same way the
urban respondents (37.6%) are not agree with the political decisions of the
familial heads. This shows that the greater is the ruralisation the greater is
the trust in the political decisions of the heads of the family. The Chi-square
test provides a significant p-value.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-6">
  <title>Family Affiliations and Voting on Family Connections</title>
<p><bold>Table
7. </bold>Gender
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table7"><label>Table 7</label><caption><title>Table 7</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th> <p><bold>Gender</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Male</p> </th><th> <p>59</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th><th> <p>42</p> </th><th> <p>141</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>41.8%</p> </th><th> <p>22.7%</p> </th><th> <p>5.7%</p> </th><th> <p>29.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Female</p> </th><th> <p>44</p> </th><th> <p>40</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>27</p> </th><th> <p>117</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>37.6%</p> </th><th> <p>34.2%</p> </th><th> <p>5.1%</p> </th><th> <p>23.1%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>103</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.426,
P-Value= 0.219           </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Maximum number of the male
respondents (41.8%) followed by the female respondents (37.6%) acknowledged
their voting on the basis of the family connections. This shows that male
respondents are more serious about the family relationships. The Chi-square
test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p> <table-wrap id="table8"><label>Table 8</label><caption><title>Age Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>18-30</p> </th><th> <p>55</p> </th><th> <p>31</p> </th><th> <p>4</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>122</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>45.1%</p> </th><th> <p>25.4%</p> </th><th> <p>3.3%</p> </th><th> <p>26.2%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>31-40</p> </th><th> <p>23</p> </th><th> <p>18</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>23</p> </th><th> <p>70</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>32.9%</p> </th><th> <p>25.7%</p> </th><th> <p>8.6%</p> </th><th> <p>32.9%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>41 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>25</p> </th><th> <p>23</p> </th><th> <p>4</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>66</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>37.9%</p> </th><th> <p>34.8%</p> </th><th> <p>6.1%</p> </th><th> <p>21.2%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>103</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 7.398, P-Value= 0.286</italic></p>  <p><italic><break/> </italic></p> <p>Greater number of the
respondent having age 18-30 (45.1%) followed by the respondents having age
group 41 and above (37.9%) mentioned their consent of voting on the basis of
kinship. This shows that the younger is the age the stronger will be the
politics on the basis of kinship. The Chi-square test provides an insignificant
p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 9. </bold>Literacy
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table9"><label>Table 9</label><caption><title>Table 9</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Literate</p> </th><th> <p>50</p> </th><th> <p>31</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>128</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>39.1%</p> </th><th> <p>24.2%</p> </th><th> <p>4.7%</p> </th><th> <p>32.0%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Illiterate</p> </th><th> <p>53</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>130</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>40.8%</p> </th><th> <p>31.5%</p> </th><th> <p>6.2%</p> </th><th> <p>21.5%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>103</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.196, P-Value= 0.241</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>So for as literacy is
concerned an immense number of the illiterate respondents (40.8%) followed by
the literate respondents (39.1%) have fully supported blood relations in
framing the political decisions. This shows that the greater is the illiteracy
the greater is the familial connections in politics. The Chi-square value
provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 10. </bold>Monthly Income
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table10"><label>Table 10</label><caption><title>Table 10</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td valign="top">  </td><td> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>15000 &amp; Below</p> </td><td> <p>28</p> </td><td> <p>24</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>14</p> </td><td> <p>72</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>38.9%</p> </td><td> <p>33.3%</p> </td><td> <p>8.3%</p> </td><td> <p>19.4%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>16000 &amp; Above</p> </td><td> <p>19</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>10</p> </td><td> <p>41</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>46.3%</p> </td><td> <p>24.4%</p> </td><td> <p>4.9%</p> </td><td> <p>24.4%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Sorry</p> </td><td> <p>56</p> </td><td> <p>38</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>45</p> </td><td> <p>145</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>38.6%</p> </td><td> <p>26.2%</p> </td><td> <p>4.1%</p> </td><td> <p>31.0%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </td><td> <p>103</p> </td><td> <p>72</p> </td><td> <p>14</p> </td><td> <p>69</p> </td><td> <p>258</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><break/></p> <p>In case of the monthly income
a heavy number of the respondents having monthly income 16000 and above (46.3%)
chased by the respondents of income group 15000 and below (38.9%) have keenly
supported blood relations in politics. This shows the greater is the income the
greater will be kinship in politics. The Chi-square value provides an
insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 11. </bold>Professional
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table11"><label>Table 11</label><caption><title>Table 11</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Government Servant</p> </th><th> <p>12</p> </th><th> <p>10</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>9</p> </th><th> <p>33</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>36.4%</p> </th><th> <p>30.3%</p> </th><th> <p>6.1%</p> </th><th> <p>27.3%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Private Service Sector</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>0</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>37.5%</p> </th><th> <p>37.5%</p> </th><th> <p>.0%</p> </th><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Businessmen &amp; Shopkeepers</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>0</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>18.2%</p> </th><th> <p>18.2%</p> </th><th> <p>.0%</p> </th><th> <p>63.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>House Wife</p> </th><th> <p>38</p> </th><th> <p>33</p> </th><th> <p>4</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>96</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>39.6%</p> </th><th> <p>34.4%</p> </th><th> <p>4.2%</p> </th><th> <p>21.9%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Others</p> </th><th> <p>48</p> </th><th> <p>24</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th><th> <p>30</p> </th><th> <p>110</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>43.6%</p> </th><th> <p>21.8%</p> </th><th> <p>7.3%</p> </th><th> <p>27.3%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>103</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 13.907,
P-Value= 0.307         </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>In case of profession maximum
numbers of the respondent that are expert businessmen and shopkeepers (63.6%)
have absolutely ignored the family affiliations while stamping the ballot.
These are followed by the respondents of the others group of professionals
(43.6%) that have encouraged politics on the basis of kinship. The others group
of the professional mostly comprised of the students, farmers, skilled,
unskilled and retired etc peoples. This shows that majority of the businessmen
and shopkeepers have absolutely ignored blood relations in politics. The
Chi-square test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table12"><label>Table 12</label><caption><title>Area Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Rural</p> </th><th> <p>68</p> </th><th> <p>43</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>133</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>51.1%</p> </th><th> <p>32.3%</p> </th><th> <p>5.3%</p> </th><th> <p>11.3%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Urban</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>29</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>54</p> </th><th> <p>125</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>28.0%</p> </th><th> <p>23.2%</p> </th><th> <p>5.6%</p> </th><th> <p>43.2%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>103</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>39.9%</p> </td><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>5.4%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 35.124,
P-Value= 0.000         </italic></p>  <p><break/></p><p>Investigating the area under
consideration shows greater number of the rural respondents (51.1%) that have
casted the ballot to greater extent acting upon the family relationships
followed by the urban respondents (43.2%) that have fully ignored the natural
connections of the family. This shows that the greater is the ruralisation the
stronger will be the kinship relationship. The Chi-square test provides a
significant p-value.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-7">
  <title>Family Affilations and the Family Disputes</title>
<p><bold>Table
13. </bold>Gender
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table13"><label>Table 13</label><caption><title>Table 13</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Male</p> </th><th> <p>36</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>57</p> </th><th> <p>141</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>25.5%</p> </th><th> <p>29.1%</p> </th><th> <p>5.0%</p> </th><th> <p>40.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Female</p> </th><th> <p>36</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>38</p> </th><th> <p>117</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>30.8%</p> </th><th> <p>23.9%</p> </th><th> <p>12.8%</p> </th><th> <p>32.5%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>95</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 6.986,
P-Value= 0.072           </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Maximum number of the male
respondents (40.4%) has absolutely ignored the factor of the family disputes in
the politics. They are followed by the female respondents (32.5%) that have casted
the ballot greatly on the basis of the familial disputes. This shows that
majority of the males have kept away the familial disputes and politics from
each other. The Chi-square test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table14"><label>Table 14</label><caption><title>Age Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>18-30</p> </th><th> <p>37</p> </th><th> <p>34</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>40</p> </th><th> <p>122</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>30.3%</p> </th><th> <p>27.9%</p> </th><th> <p>9.0%</p> </th><th> <p>32.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>31-40</p> </th><th> <p>18</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>70</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>25.7%</p> </th><th> <p>20.0%</p> </th><th> <p>8.6%</p> </th><th> <p>45.7%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>41 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>5</p> </th><th> <p>23</p> </th><th> <p>66</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>25.8%</p> </th><th> <p>31.8%</p> </th><th> <p>7.6%</p> </th><th> <p>34.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>95</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.587,
P-Value= 0.598           </italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Examining the age greater
number of the respondents having age 31-40 (45.7%) followed by respondents of
the age group 41 and above (34.8%) have fully discouraged the factor of the
familial disputes in politics. This shows that the older is the age the lesser
will be association between the familial disputes and the politics. Chi-square
test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 15. </bold>Literacy
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table15"><label>Table 15</label><caption><title>Table 15</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Literate</p> </th><th> <p>31</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>50</p> </th><th> <p>128</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>24.2%</p> </th><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>11.7%</p> </th><th> <p>39.1%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Illiterate</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>37</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>45</p> </th><th> <p>130</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>31.5%</p> </th><th> <p>28.5%</p> </th><th> <p>5.4%</p> </th><th> <p>34.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>95</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.908, P-Value= 0.179</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Maximum number of the
literate respondents (39.1%) followed by the illiterate respondents (34.6%)
opposed to vote on the basis of the family disputes. This shows that the
greater is the literacy the greater will be resistance to the family disputes
in politics. The Chi-square value provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 16. </bold>Monthly Income
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table16"><label>Table 16</label><caption><title>Table 16</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>15000 &amp; Below</p> </th><th> <p>19</p> </th><th> <p>25</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>26.4%</p> </th><th> <p>34.7%</p> </th><th> <p>8.3%</p> </th><th> <p>30.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>16000 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>10</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>24.4%</p> </th><th> <p>36.6%</p> </th><th> <p>7.3%</p> </th><th> <p>31.7%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Sorry</p> </th><th> <p>43</p> </th><th> <p>29</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>60</p> </th><th> <p>145</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>29.7%</p> </th><th> <p>20.0%</p> </th><th> <p>9.0%</p> </th><th> <p>41.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>95</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 8.047,
P-Value= 0.235</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Analysing the monthly income
signifies an immense number of the respondents that apologised to mention their
monthly income (41.4%) have fully ignored the family disputes in politics. This
is followed by another group having monthly income16000 and above (36.6%) that
have encouraged family disputes in politics. This shows that the greater is the
income the greater will be the familial oppositions in politics. The Chi-square
test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table17"><label>Table 17</label><caption><title>Professional Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th valign="top">  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Government Servant</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td><td> <p>11</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>12</p> </td><td> <p>33</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>24.2%</p> </td><td> <p>33.3%</p> </td><td> <p>6.1%</p> </td><td> <p>36.4%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Private Service Sector</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>3</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>12.5%</p> </td><td> <p>12.5%</p> </td><td> <p>37.5%</p> </td><td> <p>37.5%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Businessmen &amp; Shopkeepers</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>0</p> </td><td> <p>2</p> </td><td> <p>7</p> </td><td> <p>11</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>18.2%</p> </td><td> <p>.0%</p> </td><td> <p>18.2%</p> </td><td> <p>63.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>House Wife</p> </td><td> <p>32</p> </td><td> <p>26</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>29</p> </td><td> <p>96</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>33.3%</p> </td><td> <p>27.1%</p> </td><td> <p>9.4%</p> </td><td> <p>30.2%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Others</p> </td><td> <p>29</p> </td><td> <p>31</p> </td><td> <p>6</p> </td><td> <p>44</p> </td><td> <p>110</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>26.4%</p> </td><td> <p>28.2%</p> </td><td> <p>5.5%</p> </td><td> <p>40.0%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </td><td> <p>72</p> </td><td> <p>69</p> </td><td> <p>22</p> </td><td> <p>95</p> </td><td> <p>258</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 20.697,
P-Value= 0.055</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>So for as profession is
concerned a greater number of the businessmen and shopkeepers (63.6%) followed
by the respondents of the others group (40.0%) have stamped the ballot against
the family disputes. The others group of the professional mostly comprised of
the students, farmers, skilled, unskilled and retired etc peoples. This shows
that majority of the businessmen and shopkeepers are opposing familial disputes
in politics. The Chi-square test provides a significant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table18"><label>Table 18</label><caption><title>Area Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Rural</p> </th><th> <p>47</p> </th><th> <p>47</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>133</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>35.3%</p> </th><th> <p>35.3%</p> </th><th> <p>5.3%</p> </th><th> <p>24.1%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Urban</p> </th><th> <p>25</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>63</p> </th><th> <p>125</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>20.0%</p> </th><th> <p>17.6%</p> </th><th> <p>12.0%</p> </th><th> <p>50.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th><th> <p>69</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>95</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>27.9%</p> </td><td> <p>26.7%</p> </td><td> <p>8.5%</p> </td><td> <p>36.8%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 28.584, P-Value= 0.000</italic></p>  <p><break/></p><p>Maximum number of urban
respondents (50.4%) has fully ignored the family disputes in politics, followed
by the rural respondents (35.3%) that have fully supported the factor of family
disputes in politics. This shows the greater is the urbanization the lesser
will be family disputes in politics. The Chi-square test provides a significant
p-value.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-8">
  <title>Family Affilations and the Resolutions of the Family Disputes</title>
<p><bold>Table
19. </bold>Gender
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table19"><label>Table 19</label><caption><title>Table 19</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Male</p> </th><th> <p>52</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>10</p> </th><th> <p>58</p> </th><th> <p>141</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>36.9%</p> </th><th> <p>14.9%</p> </th><th> <p>7.1%</p> </th><th> <p>41.1%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Female</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>18</p> </th><th> <p>25</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>117</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>29.9%</p> </th><th> <p>15.4%</p> </th><th> <p>21.4%</p> </th><th> <p>33.3%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 11.570,
P-Value= 0.009</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Maximum number of the male
respondents (41.1%) followed by male respondents (36.9%) have fully discouraged
and encouraged respectively stamping the ballot on the basis of the resolution
for the familial disputes. This shows that as compare to females males have
highly casted the ballot for the resolution of familial disputes through
politics.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <table-wrap id="table20"><label>Table 20</label><caption><title>Age Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>18-30</p> </th><th> <p>49</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>40</p> </th><th> <p>122</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>40.2%</p> </th><th> <p>16.4%</p> </th><th> <p>10.7%</p> </th><th> <p>32.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>31-40</p> </th><th> <p>21</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>29</p> </th><th> <p>70</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>30.0%</p> </th><th> <p>10.0%</p> </th><th> <p>18.6%</p> </th><th> <p>41.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>41 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>17</p> </th><th> <p>12</p> </th><th> <p>9</p> </th><th> <p>28</p> </th><th> <p>66</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>25.8%</p> </th><th> <p>18.2%</p> </th><th> <p>13.6%</p> </th><th> <p>42.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 8.273, P-Value= 0.219</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>In case of the age
consideration greater number of the respondents having age 41 and above (42.4%)
sharply followed by the respondents of the age group 31-40 (41.4%) have fully
ignored the factor of the kinship disputes and its resolution in politics. This
shows that the greater is the age the greater will be resistance for the
dispute resolution in politics. The Chi-square test provides an insignificant
p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 21. </bold>Literacy
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table21"><label>Table 21</label><caption><title>Table 21</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Literate</p> </th><th> <p>36</p> </th><th> <p>19</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>53</p> </th><th> <p>128</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>28.1%</p> </th><th> <p>14.8%</p> </th><th> <p>15.6%</p> </th><th> <p>41.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Illiterate</p> </th><th> <p>51</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>15</p> </th><th> <p>44</p> </th><th> <p>130</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>39.2%</p> </th><th> <p>15.4%</p> </th><th> <p>11.5%</p> </th><th> <p>33.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.146,
P-Value= 0.246</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>So for as literacy is
concerned a large number of the literate respondents (41.4%) have opposed the
factor of the resolution of the kinship disputes in politics followed by the
illiterate respondents (39.2%) that have fully supported the factor of kinship
in politics. This shows that the greater is the literacy the greater will be
kinship in politics. The Chi-square test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>   <p><bold>Table 22. </bold>Monthly Income
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table22"><label>Table 22</label><caption><title>Table 22</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>15000 &amp; Below</p> </th><th> <p>29</p> </th><th> <p>12</p> </th><th> <p>9</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>72</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>40.3%</p> </th><th> <p>16.7%</p> </th><th> <p>12.5%</p> </th><th> <p>30.6%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>16000 &amp; Above</p> </th><th> <p>14</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>34.1%</p> </th><th> <p>19.5%</p> </th><th> <p>14.6%</p> </th><th> <p>31.7%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Sorry</p> </th><th> <p>44</p> </th><th> <p>19</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>62</p> </th><th> <p>145</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>30.3%</p> </th><th> <p>13.1%</p> </th><th> <p>13.8%</p> </th><th> <p>42.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 4.893, P-Value= 0.558</italic></p>  <p><italic><break/> </italic></p> <p>Maximum number of the
respondents having sorry group of income (42.8%) have casted the ballot against
the resolution of the familial disputes. This group is followed by the
respondents having monthly income 15000 and below (40.3%) have greatly casted
the ballot in favour of the resolution of the disputes. This shows that the
lower is the income the greater will be the factor of the family affiliations
in politics. The Chi-square test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p>  <p><bold>Table 23. </bold>Professional
Consideration</p> <table-wrap id="table23"><label>Table 23</label><caption><title>Table 23</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Government Servant</p> </th><th> <p>9</p> </th><th> <p>7</p> </th><th> <p>5</p> </th><th> <p>12</p> </th><th> <p>33</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>27.3%</p> </th><th> <p>21.2%</p> </th><th> <p>15.2%</p> </th><th> <p>36.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Private Service Sector</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>2</p> </th><th> <p>8</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>25.0%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Businessmen &amp; Shopkeepers</p> </th><th> <p>1</p> </th><th> <p>1</p> </th><th> <p>3</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>9.1%</p> </th><th> <p>9.1%</p> </th><th> <p>27.3%</p> </th><th> <p>54.5%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>House Wife</p> </th><th> <p>34</p> </th><th> <p>11</p> </th><th> <p>19</p> </th><th> <p>32</p> </th><th> <p>96</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>35.4%</p> </th><th> <p>11.5%</p> </th><th> <p>19.8%</p> </th><th> <p>33.3%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Others</p> </th><th> <p>41</p> </th><th> <p>18</p> </th><th> <p>6</p> </th><th> <p>45</p> </th><th> <p>110</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>37.3%</p> </th><th> <p>16.4%</p> </th><th> <p>5.5%</p> </th><th> <p>40.9%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 18.025,
P-Value= 0.115</italic></p>  <p><break/></p> <p>Large number of the
respondents from the professional group of businessmen and shopkeepers (54.5%) followed
by the respondents of the others group (40.9%) have fully ignored the
resolution of the familial disputes through politics. The others group of the
professional mostly comprised of the students, farmers, skilled, unskilled and
retired etc peoples. This shows that majority of the businessmen and
shopkeepers suggest distance for the family affiliations and politics. The
Chi-square test provides an insignificant p-value.</p> <p><bold><break/> </bold></p> <table-wrap id="table24"><label>Table 24</label><caption><title>Area Consideration</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th>  </th><th> <p><bold>Greater Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Some Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Limited Extent</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Absolutely No</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Total</bold></p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Rural</p> </th><th> <p>71</p> </th><th> <p>20</p> </th><th> <p>13</p> </th><th> <p>29</p> </th><th> <p>133</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>53.4%</p> </th><th> <p>15.0%</p> </th><th> <p>9.8%</p> </th><th> <p>21.8%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Urban</p> </th><th> <p>16</p> </th><th> <p>19</p> </th><th> <p>22</p> </th><th> <p>68</p> </th><th> <p>125</p> </th></tr><tr><th> <p>12.8%</p> </th><th> <p>15.2%</p> </th><th> <p>17.6%</p> </th><th> <p>54.4%</p> </th><th> <p>100.0%</p> </th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2"> <p>Total</p> </th><th> <p>87</p> </th><th> <p>39</p> </th><th> <p>35</p> </th><th> <p>97</p> </th><th> <p>258</p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p>33.7%</p> </td><td> <p>15.1%</p> </td><td> <p>13.6%</p> </td><td> <p>37.6%</p> </td><td> <p>100.0%</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>Chi-Square Value= 52.593,
P-Value= 0.000         </italic></p>  <p><break/></p><p>The area consideration
signifies important number of the urban respondents (54.4%) that have fully
opposed voting on the basis of dispute resolution. These are then closely
followed by the rural respondents (53.4%) that have encouraged the resolution
of the kinship disputes in politics. This shows that the greater is the
urbanization the lesser will be connection between the resolution of the family
disputes and politics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-9">
  <title>Conclusion</title>
<p>Family affiliation is playing a key role in determining the electoral politics in district Charsadda. The empirical data collected about the family affiliation shows fundamental importance as compared to the other voting determinants. The study shows that the theory of the family affiliation is applicable to greater extent (67.9%) in the electoral politics of district Charsadda in the 2013 general elections.</p><p>The primary data regarding family affiliations</p><p>in Charsadda has been analysed on the basis of different variables including gender, age, literacy, monthly income, profession and urban/rural stratification. Exploring family affiliations on the basis of the gender shows that it is more applicable in females as compared to males. Examining the familial affiliations on the basis of age demonstrates its importance in the old age peoples having age group 41 years and above. So far as literacy is concerned family affiliation as a voting determinant is more supported by the illiterate respondents? Investigating, the family affiliation as a social determinant of the voting behaviour on the basis of monthly income shows that it is more applicable in the peoples having income group 15000 and below. Scrutinizing the kinship in politics on the basis of the profession shows that it is more supported by the professionals of the private service sector. In case of the area consideration family affiliation is more encouraged by the rural respondents in the 2013 general elections in the constituency of NA-8 district Charsadda.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://gssrjournal.com/pdf/gssr/JFKJ8APgha.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Ahmad">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ahmad, M. S</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Electoral Politics in NWFP 1988-1999</article-title>
    <source>Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad</source>
    <page-range>olitics</page-range>
    Ahmad, M. S. (2010). Electoral Politics in NWFP 1988-1999. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Ahmed">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Ahmed, D. M</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <source>â€œVoting behaviour in rural and urban areas of Punjab.â€ Journal of Political Studies, 45-55</source>
    <page-range>unjab</page-range>
    Ahmed, D. M. (2010). â€œVoting behaviour in rural and urban areas of Punjab.â€ Journal of Political Studies, 45-55.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Birnir">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Birnir</person-group>
    <year>2007</year>
    <article-title>. Johanna Krist ÌIn</article-title>
    <source>Ethnicity and Electoral Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press</source>
    <page-range>olitics</page-range>
    Birnir. (2007). Johanna Krist ÌIn. Ethnicity and Electoral Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press,
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Cameron">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Cameron, D. A., &amp; Laura, B. S</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Voting behaviour in Canada</article-title>
    <source>Canada: UBC Press</source>
    <page-range>ress</page-range>
    Cameron, D. A., &amp; Laura, B. S. (2010). Voting behaviour in Canada. Canada: UBC Press,
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Faisal">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Faisal, A. C., Aqeel, A., Muhammad, S. J., Irfan, H., Muhammad, M. A., &amp; Javeria, K</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <source>â€œBiradrism as Stronger Determinant of Voting Behavior; Exploring the Voting Behavior Of People Towards Different Political Parties During Election 2013 In District Layyah.â€ International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>4</issue>
    <fpage>1773</fpage>
    Faisal, A. C., Aqeel, A., Muhammad, S. J., Irfan, H., Muhammad, M. A., &amp; Javeria, K. (2014). â€œBiradrism as Stronger Determinant of Voting Behavior; Exploring the Voting Behavior Of People Towards Different Political Parties During Election 2013 In District Layyah.â€ International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 9(4), 1773- 1777.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Jamil">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Jamil, A. S., Syeda, S., Shahid, B., &amp; Riffat, Na</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <source>â€œVoting Behavior and Elections in Pakistan (A Case Study of Pakistani Election Methods and Methodology).â€ The Explorer Islamabad: Journal of Social Sciences</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>12</issue>
    <fpage>449</fpage>
    <lpage>456</lpage>
    Jamil, A. S., Syeda, S., Shahid, B., &amp; Riffat, Na. (2015). â€œVoting Behavior and Elections in Pakistan (A Case Study of Pakistani Election Methods and Methodology).â€ The Explorer Islamabad: Journal of Social Sciences, 1(12), 449-456.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Jessica">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Jessica, R., David, J. B., &amp; Lloyd, N. G</person-group>
    <year>2014</year>
    <source>â€œA Model of Political Voting Behaviours across Different Countries.â€ 1-22</source>
    <page-range>olitical</page-range>
    Jessica, R., David, J. B., &amp; Lloyd, N. G. (2014). â€œA Model of Political Voting Behaviours across Different Countries.â€ 1-22
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.022</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.022">10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.022</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Morrison">
  <label>8</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Morrison, S., Lindberg, I., &amp; Minion, K. C</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <source>â€œAre African Voters Really Ethnic or Clientelistic? Survey Evidence from Ghana.â€ Political Science Quarterly</source>
    <volume>123</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>42</lpage>
    Morrison, S., Lindberg, I., &amp; Minion, K. C. (2008). â€œAre African Voters Really Ethnic or Clientelistic? Survey Evidence from Ghana.â€ Political Science Quarterly 123(1), 1-42.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00618.x</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00618.x">10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00618.x</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Naseem">
  <label>9</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Naseem, M. A., &amp; Fozia</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <source>â€œSocial system influences Political System comparative study of sub-continent.â€ Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences</source>
    <volume>1</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    <lpage>11</lpage>
    Naseem, M. A., &amp; Fozia. (2011). â€œSocial system influences Political System comparative study of sub-continent.â€ Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences 1(1), 1-11.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Rauf">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Rauf, A., &amp; Shah, H</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <source>â€œDeterminants of Turnout in Elections: A Case Study of 2008 General Elections in District Charsadda.â€ FWU Journal of Social Sciences</source>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>111</fpage>
    Rauf, A., &amp; Shah, H. (2015). â€œDeterminants of Turnout in Elections: A Case Study of 2008 General Elections in District Charsadda.â€ FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 111- 117.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Sheriff">
  <label>11</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Sheriff, G. I., Abdullahi, N. L., &amp; Kabir, M</person-group>
    <year>2015</year>
    <source>â€œThe 2015 General Elections: A Review of Major Determinants of Paradigm Shift in Voting Behaviour and Political Participation in Nigeria.â€ International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies</source>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <issue>9</issue>
    <fpage>8</fpage>
    <lpage>16</lpage>
    Sheriff, G. I., Abdullahi, N. L., &amp; Kabir, M. (2015). â€œThe 2015 General Elections: A Review of Major Determinants of Paradigm Shift in Voting Behaviour and Political Participation in Nigeria.â€ International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Studies, 2(9), 8-16.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Visser">
  <label>12</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Visser, M</person-group>
    <year>1996</year>
    <source>â€œVoting: A Behavioral Analysis.â€ Behavior and Social</source>
    <volume>6</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>23</fpage>
    <lpage>34</lpage>
    Visser, M. (1996). â€œVoting: A Behavioral Analysis.â€ Behavior and Social, 6(1), 23-34.
    <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5210/bsi.v6i1.279</pub-id>
    <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v6i1.279">10.5210/bsi.v6i1.279</ext-link>
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Wilder">
  <label>13</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Wilder, A. R</person-group>
    <year>1999</year>
    <article-title>. The Pakistani Voter: Electoral Politics and Voting Behaviour in the Punjab</article-title>
    <source>Karachi: Oxford University Press</source>
    <page-range>akistani</page-range>
    Wilder, A. R. (1999). The Pakistani Voter: Electoral Politics and Voting Behaviour in the Punjab. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>