Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), a political thinker from Renaissance Italy, is best known for his no-nonsense, often harsh approach to power and governance. In his famous book, ‘The Prince’ he argued that the most important goal for any ruler is to preserve and strengthen the state, even if it means making morally questionable decisions. For Machiavelli, maintaining power was paramount, and this sometimes meant using manipulation, strategic alliances, or even deceit. His advice to rulers was clear: focus on the stability of the state, and don’t worry too much about ethical considerations. This mindset, though rooted in 16th-century Italy, continues to resonate in the political world today, especially in places like Pakistan, where political power struggles and tactical manoeuvring often shape decisions at the highest levels.
Machiavelli’s ideas about being pragmatic and adaptable in leadership can be clearly seen in Pakistan’s political scene. Over the years, Pakistan has experienced many shifts between military and civilian governments, with each new regime adjusting its tactics to stay in power amid both internal challenges and external pressures. The military’s recurring role in Pakistan’s politics is a good example of Machiavellian thinking, where national stability and security often take precedence over democratic norms and civil rights. Military leaders made decisions that were often driven by strategic calculations-aiming to strengthen their hold on power, safeguard national interests, and at times, quash political opposition to maintain control. In these cases, Machiavelli’s notion of prioritizing the state’s survival over ethical or democratic processes seemed to resonate deeply with the political realities of the time.
Machiavelli’s idea of realpolitik-using practical, often morally questionable tactics to hold onto power-has been reflected in Pakistan’s political practices over the years. In times of political chaos or instability, the military’s influence in Pakistan has often followed this pragmatic approach. The military justifies its involvement by arguing that it’s necessary to safeguard national security and maintain stability, even if that means sidelining democratic processes.
The military justifies its involvement by arguing that it’s necessary to safeguard national security and maintain stability, even if that means sidelining democratic processes.
A striking example of this is the 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. At that time, Pakistan was dealing with severe political turmoil, with parties like the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) struggling to maintain effective governance. The military stepped in, removing the government with the promise of restoring order and stability. From a Machiavellian perspective, this move can be seen as an attempt to remove an ineffective government for the sake of national stability-disregarding democratic norms and constitutional processes in the process. This echoes Machiavelli’s belief that sometimes rulers need to act swiftly and decisively, even if it means taking controversial or unethical steps to preserve the state and restore order.
Machiavelli’s political theory also extends into the world of foreign policy, where nations, in his view, often act based on strategic calculations to secure their power and influence. Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially in relation to neighbouring countries has frequently mirrored Machiavellian principles. The need to maintain sovereignty, navigate power dynamics, and secure geopolitical advantages has often guided Pakistan’s approach to international relations-sometimes resulting in pragmatic alliances and at other times, confrontations.
Take Pakistan’s relationship with the United States, for example. During the Cold War, Pakistan aligned itself with the U.S. to counter the Soviet Union’s influence in the region, securing both military aid and economic support. Years later, after the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan once again found itself cooperating with the U.S. in the War on Terror, despite the potential fallout with neighbouring countries like Afghanistan. This shift reflects Machiavelli’s view that foreign policy decisions are driven by national interests, alliances, and the calculation of power rather than ideological or moral consistency.
Similarly, the complex relationship between Pakistan and India, particularly over the Kashmir issue, offers an indication of Machiavellian realpolitik. Despite being rivals, both nations are constantly navigating power dynamics, each seeking to maximize their strategic advantages. The ongoing military standoff in Kashmir, Pakistan’s focus on nuclear deterrence, and its strategic alliances with powers like China all demonstrate Machiavelli’s belief that international relations are shaped by the pursuit of state interests and the balancing of power-often at the expense of broader ethical concerns or long-term ideological consistency.
Machiavelli’s ideas on hereditary rule and the strategic use of personal alliances are clearly reflected in Pakistan’s political system, where political dynasties hold significant influence. Families like the Bhuttos, the Sharifs, and more recently, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) demonstrate how power often remains concentrated within a few prominent individuals or families, even when their political ideologies may vary. These dynasties show how Machiavelli’s principles of power consolidation through alliances and loyalty play out in real-world politics.
Take the Bhutto family as an example. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), used both his charisma and strategic alliances to build a strong political base. His daughter, Benazir Bhutto, carried on this tradition, navigating Pakistan’s complex political culture to keep her family’s grip on power. In a similar vein, the Sharif family, through the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), has maintained political clout for decades. They’ve skillfully managed shifting alliances with the military and other political players to hold onto power. This kind of power play echoes Machiavelli’s thoughts on the importance of loyalty and strategic relationships in politics.
Machiavelli also emphasized the importance of public perception and loyalty among allies, and this is where Pakistan’s political dynasties shine. Both the Bhuttos and the Sharifs have cultivated strong personal followings, ensuring their political actions and ideologies remain closely tied to their family legacies. Though dynastic politics is often criticized for undermining democratic ideals, it clearly reflects how Machiavellian tactics-strategic alliances, personal loyalty, and political manoeuvring-are often key to maintaining power.
Absolutely, Machiavelli’s political ideology is not just limited to the history books-it’s alive and well in the modern world. His principles of pragmatism, power dynamics, and realpolitik are reflected in how nations and leaders operate on both domestic and global stages. Whether it’s strategic manoeuvring in international relations, internal power struggles, or the use of calculated alliances, Machiavelli’s ideas about maintaining power and prioritizing state stability resonate across the globe.
The writer is a PhD scholar and author of various books on international relations, criminology and gender studies. He can be reached at fastian.mentor @gmail.com