An ideology is a set of related ideas that interprets social relations in the past, surveys the present, and prescribes requisites of a good life in the future. It has been customary in certain circles to assert that Pakistan was intended to be an ideological state. It may be said also that even if the state is ideological in terms of its constitution, its politicians, other than those belonging to the Islamic parties, are not informed by any particular ideology. Ideologies may be partial or comprehensive. Capitalism relates to the production and distribution of goods and services, but it has little or nothing to say about many other aspects of societal interaction. Communism, on the other hand, will guide all facets of life including such things as creative arts. Many commentators in Pakistan assert that its ideology was intended to be Islam, which they say is a complete code of life. When a state subscribes to a comprehensive ideology, it tends to operate as a tyranny. For such an ideology does not admit of rivals or dissidents. Yet they are almost certain to appear and when they do they will be persecuted. One may now ask if we can do without ideologies. There are many states in our own time that do not officially profess any of the known comprehensive ideologies. There may be individuals and groups who do. It may also be said that we can let go of the known ideologies and devise a new one. We may for instance say that pursuit of public interest is our ideology. That will not conclude the matter, for it is a vital function of an ideology to tell us what public interest really is or should be. A rejoinder to this position may be that public interest is not necessarily what the ruling elite or their opponents say it is. For practical purposes it is what the people themselves say it is. That is the democratic way. Public interest in a place like Pakistan is self-evident. Shortages of water, electricity, and gas are to be overcome; employment opportunities, healthcare, and education have to be expanded; the economy has to be diversified and moved forward ; corruption has to be eradicated and governance made honest and efficient; security of life and property has to be restored and rule of law revived. That done, the people of this country, who are its largest and most precious resource, have to be enabled to actualise their potential to the fullest possible extent. They are then to seek fulfilment in the pursuit of happiness. Observers belonging to a religious establishment may think that the attainment of eternal bliss in the hereafter is a more important public interest, but most politicians will agree that the afore-mentioned objectives are worthy. They will disagree on the means of achieving them, on where and how the required funds are to be found. At this point ideology may intervene. The MQM, for instance, may want to raise money by confiscating the properties of big landlords. The present government prefers to borrow money from domestic and foreign lending agencies. It wanted to levy a general sales tax but it has had to postpone this measure because of widespread opposition. Certain observers point out that agriculture makes for about 30 percent of the national economy. Farmers receive subsidies but even the large landowners among them pay no income tax. Those who make enormous amounts of money by making deals on the stock exchange also do not pay tax on their earnings. Many billions of rupees will be added to the treasury if they and the great landowners were taxed. Most of our politicians are likely to claim that they subscribe to an ideology. Not having one would be like going around naked. Ground realities tell us a different story. The Islamic parties do have an ideology even if each one of them has a slightly different interpretation of the same. If Altaf Hussain and his associates really mean what they say about confiscating large landed estates, they may be said to have a quasi-socialist ideology. The PPP and ANP may advocate slightly left-of-centre programmes of social change, and while the PML-N may stand slightly right-of-centre in this regard, none of them is really an ideological party in any meaningful sense of that term. They are essentially pragmatic parties. They are engaged in the pursuit of power. Let us now turn to the relevance of ideology to politics in Pakistan. The generality of people here will insist that they have an ideology, and that it is Islam. They have a peculiar connection with Islam. They will kill and die in its name but they will not live by its principles and values. They will not return the Islamic parties, which promise to Islamise the country’s government and society, to power in elections. They will vote for candidates who promise to deliver goods and services they need, and beyond that they will answer the calls of caste, clan, and hierarchical relationships. In other words, they are pragmatic in their political behaviour. In conclusion it may be said that in Pakistani politics while ideology may be called in to provide the appearance of legitimacy to actions that politicians intend to take in their own interest, or to advance their version of the public interest, it is not the primary consideration in their decision-making. The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics