The performative aspect of Pakistani politics is markedly vacuous simply because the preponderant mode of practical politics is Machiavellian. The ideological content is conspicuously lacking. This reduces politic to mere gimmickry.

Instead of caring for the national interest, politicians have clear preference for their own good. These were my pronouncements while I was conversing with a journalist friend. According to his view of modern politics, last rites have already been performed for ideology, which is no longer an integral part of the political discourse.

He is right. Ideological aspect of politics has been consigned to the periphery. But considering how dull, dreary and monotonous Pakistani politics has become, some life can only be infused in it by exhorting reformatory zeal.

Doing politics for the sake of reforming the society in general, overhauling state institutions and establishing a new social contract between the state and the people, needs idealism. Reformation of any kind is impossible without idealism. It is through reformism alone that a new intellectual synthesis can be forged by attaining clarity about the tradition and modernity. That synthesis is absolutely vital for Pakistan, which is, currently, intellectually sterile and ideologically impoverished and for giving the youth a sense of direction and purpose in pursuit of which they ought to plan and lead their lives.

It is as though Fyodor Dostoevsky had the Pakistani youth in his mind when he wrote, “The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for.” It is important for us to understand that without reformism, politics would be nothing but business.

Machiavelli held that to rule well public and private morality had to be understood as two different things. Machiavelli argued that, for a ruler, it was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved; a loved ruler retains authority by obligation while a feared leader rules by fear of punishment.

Machiavellianism in general refers to a personality trait that sees a person so focused on their own interests that they will manipulate, deceive and exploit others to achieve their goals. Machiavelli seems to be in accord with Thomas Hobbes in asserting that people are generally self-interested, although their affection can be won and lost. They may be trustworthy in prosperous times, but they will quickly turn selfish, deceitful, and profit-driven in times of adversity.

A majority of our politicians might not have heard the name of Niccolò Machiavelli or his magnum opus, The Prince. That ignorance notwithstanding, a big majority of them appears to be unwittingly following parts of his dictates. Parts, because Machiavelli also emphasised the rule of law, which he considered mandatory for the stability of social and political order(s).

Worryingly, very few among our ruling elite have a firm belief in Pakistan’s future. Otherwise, money laundering and purchasing property abroad by so many of them would make no sense.

While talking about reform through politics, it is important to highlight the element of sacrifice. Notching up your desired goal without sacrifice is nothing but a midsummer night’s dream. Look at Nelson Mandela and his sacrifice. He created history through the sacrifice that he made for a political cause.

MK Gandhi and Dr Ambedkar, too, are examples of such sacrifice. Despite being a critic of their ideologies and methods of doing politics, I recognise their passion for reforming the society. These politicians also had fertile minds that could conjure up new ideas through a synthesis of the traditional and the modern.

That intellectual synthesis had stupendous appeal for the public. Pakistan, unfortunately, appeared not to value the politicians with a reformist agenda: the likes of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his Khudai Kidmatgar movement colleagues. His aim had been social amelioration of the Pashtun through education, indeed a commendable objective.

In Pakistan, social reform and politics hardly converged. Abdul Sattar Edhi never aspired to be a politician. Imran Khan entered politics with socio-political reforms as his aim but the reforms that he had suggested and wanted to carry out have been politicised and Khan seems to be badly stuck in the quagmire of the status quo on one hand and Machiavellian politics on the other. One wonders if a mreformist agenda can ever be carried out through parliamentary democracy in a post-colonial polity.

Jamaat-i-islami, too, had a reformist agenda but it failed to re-invent itself after the demise of Maulana Maududi. He had no successor in the realm of intellect. The Jamaat has seemed to be tied to its founder’s thoughts and has found it difficult to adapt to the new political realities. Its electoral power was appropriated by Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s as a result of the alliance that Qazi Hussain Ahmad cobbled with the Muslim League.

Ever since, it has been a shadow of its original self. It has been reduced to be a symbolic face for the Jamiat-i-Talaba, its student wing. Having said all that, Jamaat-i-Islam has been the only religio-political party in Pakistan’s political history with reformism as a part of its ideology.

As regards the future, one can pin hopes on Maryam Nawaz as a leader but the path ahead is riddled with challenges. She has to carry a huge baggage of her elders’ wrongdoings.

She will have to distance herself from the legacy of her father and uncle. Carving out a separate course of political action would be daunting yet necessary. She must add idealism to her political jargon/ discourse and devise a reformist strategy. She must be mindful also that in post-colonial politics anyone aspiring for a political role must be on the right side of the establishment.

Lastly, she must groom herself by studying the dynamics of politics in post-colonial societies. This includes biographies of the leaders who made a difference. That can help her transcend the personalised references that she is prone to making in her talks and speeches. She has the charisma, popular appeal and a strong will which to my reckoning are necessary for a political leader of great stature.

The author is a professor of history and a writer. He can be reached at tahir.kamran@bnu.edu.pk