"For Machiavelli, the ideal ruthless political operator is Moses. Above Caesar, above Alexander, above Cesare Borgia… it is Moses that Machiavelli holds up as the model of how to enter into evil.
How can this be anything but blasphemy? When we think of Moses we think: good, honest, humble, compassionate. When we think of Machiavelli we think: evil, deceptive, prideful, violent. How can Moses be Machiavelli’s model of entering into evil when he is literally the lawgiver who established the Ten Commandments? Machiavelli responds, look at how he established those commandments: “since he wished his laws and his orders to go forward, Moses was forced to kill infinite men who, moved by nothing other than envy, were opposed to his plans.” If you read the Bible closely, you will see Moses massacre, deceive, genocide… all for the greater good. This is why he was Machiavelli’s favorite leader: someone who was willing to do what was necessary to achieve the most noble goals.
Machiavelli highlights Moses to teach the few and not the many. He wrote his books to teach those “rare and marvellous men” that come once every few hundred years how to achieve the grandest political projects: the founding of states, civilizations, and even religions. His chief lesson is this: always being good makes you weak and effeminate, you will lose to those who aren’t. Good people make terrible leaders. As a leader you must operate on a different set of rules than everyone else. It is good that you are selfish, it is good that you have a lust for glory. You must be willing to cheat, lie, murder if necessary. But you must do all of this while appearing to be good: like a wolf in sheep’s clothing."-- Jonathan Bi
The internet loses its shit the moment something 'untoward' and 'unprecedented' happens. At the same time you will also see events that make little to no sense as far as human civilisation and its evolution is concerned. I have come to the conclusion that education and awareness have become so scarce that to expect it from a layman comes with a different set of terms and conditions. In the recent times, I have come across several content (pages, reels, posts, etc.) on social media that keep doing the rounds because of extensive hate or admiration, both in equal amounts whenever something wrong was observed in a country's administrative machinery. I wanted to do a comparative study on two individuals who have been inspirational when it comes to thinking of welfare of the common masses and proved the saying incorrect that politicians are always selfish. They chose a different way of administering and one couldn't help but wonder if they have an iota of fear or not.
Politics often produces leaders whose life trajectories could not be more different, yet who reflect in powerful ways the values, struggles, and aspirations of the societies that shape them. Zohran Mamdani, a rising democratic socialist voice in contemporary American politics, and Imran Khan, a populist-national leader and former Prime Minister of Pakistan, represent two such contrasting figures. Though separated by geography, generation, and political context, both stand at the intersection of identity, public morality, and the quest to represent the “common people” against entrenched power. Their comparison offers insight not only into leadership styles but into the vastly different political cultures of the United States and Pakistan.
Zohran Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, in 1991 to parents of Indian heritage and moved to New York during childhood. His upbringing was shaped by immigrant realities, multiculturalism, and the intellectual environment of a family deeply rooted in academia and arts. His political consciousness grew out of activism rather than privilege: community organizing, housing counseling, tenant rights work, and a lived familiarity with the struggles of working-class immigrant neighborhoods in Queens. Mamdani’s identity is therefore diasporic, intersectional, and firmly embedded in Western urban progressive movements. Imran Khan, by contrast, was born in 1952 into a prominent Pashtun family in Lahore, Pakistan. He inherited social standing, privilege, and cultural authority from birth. Educated partly in England and trained in elite institutions like Oxford, Khan first achieved fame not through activism but through sport — becoming one of cricket’s most iconic captains and leading Pakistan to the 1992 World Cup victory. His transition into politics was preceded by philanthropy on a national scale, including the creation of a major cancer hospital. His authority, therefore, emerged from charisma, nationalism, and unmatched celebrity status within Pakistan.
If Mamdani is a product of grassroots struggle, Imran Khan is a product of national myth-making.
Mamdani’s politics fall squarely within the democratic socialist and progressive tradition of the United States. His priorities — affordable housing, tenant protections, immigrant rights, public transit, childcare, and structural equality — reflect an urban social-justice orientation. His ideological vocabulary is shaped by Marxian analysis, anti-racism, anti-capitalist critique, and the lived experiences of marginalized communities. His politics are inclusionary, equity-driven, and deeply skeptical of concentrated wealth and corporate power.
Imran Khan’s ideology is more complex and hybrid. His central message has long been anti-corruption and anti-elite, promising a “Naya Pakistan” free from dynastic politics. Over time, however, his populism was blended with religious references, nationalist narratives, and an appeal to moral revival within an Islamic welfare-state framework. Khan’s rhetoric often framed politics as a moral struggle between a corrupt elite and a righteous common people — a classic populist construction. His economic policies shifted between welfare promises and neoliberal constraints, reflecting the pressures of governing a nation with economic vulnerabilities.
Where Mamdani seeks structural reforms in a stable democracy, Khan sought moral and political reform in a volatile, military-influenced political system.
The scale of leadership that each figure occupies also fundamentally differs. Mamdani’s ascent in New York politics — including his role as a state assemblyman and rising progressive figure — positions him as a city-focused leader whose impact is concentrated in urban policy and municipal governance. His power lies in legislative advocacy, coalition-building, and symbolic representation of marginalized communities in a global metropolis.
Khan, however, reached the apex of national power, serving as the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2018 to 2022. His leadership involved foreign policy, national security, economic stabilization efforts, and navigating Pakistan’s complex civil-military dynamics. His tenure required direct confrontation with entrenched institutions and structural constraints that no municipal leader faces.
Mamdani represents grassroots mobilization; Khan represents charismatic mass leadership. Mamdani appeals to young, diverse, immigrant-heavy, and progressive constituencies. His supporters see him as a corrective to neoliberal urban governance, a voice for tenants, the working class, and ethnic minorities. He embodies hope for a more equitable urban future in a wealthy but unequal city. Imran Khan’s appeal rests on a different emotional foundation: national pride, anti-corruption sentiment, and the desire for a break from Pakistan’s dynastic politics. His charisma, cricket legacy, and outsider image allowed him to mobilize millions, especially youth disillusioned with traditional political elites.
Mamdani symbolizes social justice; Khan symbolizes national renewal.
Mamdani faces criticism mainly for his outspoken stances on polarizing global issues and for being seen as too ideological by political moderates. His challenge is translating progressive ideals into pragmatic policy in a city shaped by corporate interests, real-estate power, and bureaucratic inertia. Khan’s challenges were far more dramatic. His tenure was marked by economic crises, accusations of mismanagement, political polarization, and eventual removal from office through a no-confidence vote. He has also faced ongoing legal battles and conflicts with Pakistan’s powerful military establishment. For Khan, the challenge is not idealism versus practicality, but power versus institutional resistance.8
Zohran Mamdani and Imran Khan are, in many ways, emblematic of the political worlds they inhabit. Mamdani represents the rise of a new progressive generation in Western urban politics — idealistic, justice-oriented, and grounded in grassroots activism. Imran Khan represents South Asian populism — charismatic, morally framed, nationalistic, and shaped by the turbulence of a postcolonial state grappling with identity and governance crises. Both leaders speak the language of the people, but the “people” they speak for exist in entirely different realities. Mamdani’s politics seek equity; Khan’s seek transformation. Mamdani combats systemic inequality in a stable democratic framework; Khan fought entrenched political elites in a fragile one.
Their comparison reveals a simple truth: leadership is not only about personality or ideology — it is a mirror reflecting the society that produces it.
The whole motive of this article was directed towards the idea that where 'dumb' sometimes comes across as the need of the hour to escape accountability, being 'aware' will still invoke a lot of respect and admiration when it comes to social welfare. You cannot be a part of society and not moved by injustice. That is the signifier of intelligence. It is not a surprise that every villain we have known of, in real life or in fiction, everyone was supremely brainy.
Comments
Post a Comment