Since the end of the Second World War, the world has remained distinctly divided into two ideological, political, and economic camps: the Right and the Left in geopolitics. The ongoing ideological debate between the Right (which typically defends private enterprise, market economies with minimal government interference, democratic forms of government, and traditional family values) and the Left (which supports social solidarity, government involvement in the economy, the subordination of democratic forms to social priorities, and the defence of minority rights) is a struggle between opponents who are not always true to their professed values. This raises the question of whether there is still a genuine ideological dimension to this contest.
In his book “The Road to Freedom,” Joseph Stiglitz writes, “Freedom is a core human value…Freedom from whom? What happens when one person’s freedom comes at the expense of another’s?... How are we to balance political and economic freedom?” This dilemma is particularly relevant for countries like Pakistan, which are deeply in debt and reliant on loans from the World Bank, IMF, and other international financial institutions. Such dependency forces them to make decisions that often undermine public interest, leading to persistent political instability.
Nevertheless, the current state of the world economy is poorly understood by both the Left and the Right, preventing them from defining clear ideological options that would enable the development of solid and consistent political messages. A lack of awareness of key economic realities, such as the declining economic significance of the West compared to the rest of the world, the increase in U.S. public debt, and its unsustainable financing through monetary issuance, has exacerbated the current geopolitical confrontation. According to Oscar Silva-Valladares, “a key reason for this disorientation in the left versus right debate is unawareness of the current world geopolitical confrontation. This conflict is a struggle between an exclusivist vision of Western hegemonic dominance...and a multipolarity perception promoted by Russia and China, among other powers.” The conflict between the West and the East, which does not adhere strictly to geographic boundaries, is not new but has taken on new significance in the absence of the clear ideological divisions that once defined the global order, such as capitalism versus communism during the Cold War.
The new geopolitical alignments, as evidenced by the China-led SCO and the Russia-dominated and recently consolidated BRICS alliance, emerging in response to American sanctions following the Ukraine conflict, indicate a blurring of lines between Western hegemonism and multipolarity. This alignment does not represent a division between opposing political or economic models of governance, but rather a straightforward power struggle between Western hegemonic primacy and a growing majority of countries with diverse economic and political models that resist it. On the one hand, Western hegemonic power transcends political formulas, forging alliances with non-democratic Gulf states when convenient. On the other hand, BRICS countries, despite their diverse political and economic systems, share a strong commitment to preserving cultural and social autonomy. For example, Russia and China strive to balance their authoritarian political models with the need to maintain stability among their diverse multi-ethnic populations.
Traditionally, most right-wing countries have aligned closely with Western hegemonic powers, finding comfort in the U.S. security umbrella and struggling to comprehend that today’s Russia is not the Soviet Union or Tsarist Russia. The Left, while professing less sympathy for the U.S.-led status quo, often has leadership that is economically dependent on the West through roles in NGOs, international organisations, or academic institutions funded directly or indirectly by Western governments.
These historical affiliations of the Left and the Right have created dependencies that, in the face of new geopolitical realities, have led to significant ideological distortion and confusion. Despite their origins and objectives during the Cold War, and notwithstanding growing convergence with leftist elements, globalism and progressivism remain deeply embedded in the current political leadership of the West. NGOs, for instance, often act as instruments of Western government agendas in the geopolitical arena. Globalism, as a manifestation of the Western hegemonic struggle for power, is likely to persist regardless of the outcomes of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
The intensifying geopolitical hostility will eventually deepen the ideological divides on both the Left and the Right. Pakistan’s internal, foreign, and economic policies, if any coherent ones exist for more than a few months, can best be understood in the context of this geopolitical confusion and failure to clearly align with the correct economic and security blocs. The adage “Once bitten, twice shy” should be a guiding principle for Pakistani policymakers as they navigate these complex historical lessons.
Saleem Qamar Butt
The writer is a retired senior army officer with experience in international relations, military diplomacy and analysis of geo-political and strategic security issues.