Macrohistory seeks out large, long-term scale trends in world history to search some recurrent and ultimate patterns by a comparison of proximate details. It offers a comparative perspective that determines the origins of changes along with the developmental paths of a society or a historical process. Through the deconstruction of cyclical and linear patterns of history, macrohistory, based on the political pasts of the civilizations, offers a framework for their fanciful future destinies. It is a weight of history that can eventually balance the pull of the image of the future. Yet, like future studies, macrohistory seeks to transform past, present, and future, not only reflect upon social space and time.
Drawing from the works of Ilhan Niaz, a macrohistorian, this essay links the macrohistory of the state structures, cultures of powers, and governance in South Asia and beyond with the future of humanity. It takes the views of Professor Niaz on the governance patterns that are his main unit of analysis, in Pakistan, South Asia, Eurasia, and the Americas and asks what he offers to the study of the political past and alternative futures.
1. Macrohistory and Epistemic Contexts
Ilhan Niaz is a Professor of History at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan, and a renowned macrohistorian. His research specialization is the history of governance in South Asia and beyond. He has authored several books including An Inquiry into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent (Alhamra,2006); The Culture of Power and Governance of Pakistan, 1947–2008 (OUP, 2010); Old World Empires: Cultures of Power and Governance in Eurasia (Routledge, 2014); The State During the British Raj: Imperial Governance in South Asia 1700–1947 (OUP, 2019); Downfall: Lessons from Our Final (CSCR, 2022); and, New World Empires: Cultures of Power and Governance in the Americas (Routledge, 2025).
As macrohistorians make claims of being empirical, it is important to locate macrohistorians within the historical conditions they write in and the episteme that frames what is knowable. For example, Ibn Khaldun, a historian-philosopher, asserts that his sociology is time, space, and culture invariant, yet the basis for his theory emerged from the primacy of unity in Islamic thought. Similarly, Professor Niaz’s works on the conceptualization of the history of the culture of power and his comments on historiography can be located within varied times, spaces, and cultures of the area or civilization, whether Pakistan, South Asia, Eurasia, and the Americas, to which he takes as his unit of analysis yet his sociology of theorizing the culture of powers and governance of all these regions are primarily emerging from the rulers’ attitude towards and treatment with the state machinery and revolves around the one preposition, that seems common in all the political cultures, that the rulers have treated the state resources and status apparatus as their personal estate and had used them, arguably, for their personal-individual interests rather for the broader-collective welfare of the people or the citizens of the state.
In continental bureaucratic empires that manifest arbitrary cultures of power, the rulers perceive the state and the country as a personal estate
Professor Niaz takes into account the historical survey of the relationship between proprietorship, state structure, and cultures of power, over the broad expanse of South Asian History and beyond. In doing so, the spatial scope of his inquiry is into the major South Asian political cultures such as Maurya, Delhi Sultanate, Mughal, and British; political cultures of Eurasia that is a geopolitical term that relates to the single enormous landmass composed of the continents of Europe and Asia; and when it comes to his recent book on the culture of powers in Americas, it spans over the Indigenous orders of pre-Columbian America, the Spanish, Portuguese, and British Empires in the Americas, and their major successor states of Mexico, Brazil, and the United States.
By looking at the varied socio-political cultures of South Asia and beyond, he kept changing his unit of analysis in terms of their temporal and spatial scope, what, however, remains unchanged and not uncommon in his broader macro-analysis is his theorization of all cultures of powers ranging from ancient to modern, from South Asian, Eurasian to Americans. The sociology of the culture of power and governance that he has developed and employed in his works is that:
“in continental bureaucratic empires that manifest arbitrary cultures of power, the rulers perceive the state and the country as a personal estate. As a consequence, the level of insecurity even within the elite, which can be dispossessed by the ruler, is remarkably high. Pervasive insecurity means that the incentives to work, save, and invest, are greatly diminished, and the creativity and enterprise that sustain qualitative improvement in the economic and technological base are by and large lacking. This pattern manifested itself more or less consistently until the British period when, for a number of reasons, private property, the rule of law, and other reforms were introduced. A new dynamic gains momentum and the basis for a modern economy is laid.”
Ilhan Niaz, “A Survey of Proprietorship, Continental Bureaucratic Empires, and the Culture of Power, in South Asian History”, The Pakistan Development Review, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn 2006), pp. 327-339.
2. The Plays of Scale: On Macrohistory of Culture of Power and Governance
What follows is a summary of Professor Niaz’s idea of the culture of power and governance that he has explained and employed in his series of books of which the framework of analysis is the same but their spatial and temporal scope are different from each other when it comes to a region or political culture they cover. The discussion intentionally overlooks the chronological-temporal order (as per the year of the publications) of the books and takes them into account while considering their spatial scope to conclude the debate on the culture of power in South Asia and issues of governance in Pakistan in particular.
2.1. On Culture of Power and Governance in Eurasia
Old World Empires Cultures of Power and Governance in Eurasia (Routledge, 2014) is a classic historical-comparative survey of the origins, evolution, and nature of state power. It demonstrates that Eurasia is home to a dominant tradition of arbitrary rule mediated through military, civil, and ecclesiastical servants and a marginal tradition of representative and responsible government through autonomous institutions. The former tradition finds expression in hierarchically organized and ideologically legitimated continental bureaucratic states while the latter manifests itself in the state of laws. In recent times, the marginal tradition has gained in popularity and has led to continental bureaucratic states attempting to introduce democratic and constitutional reforms. These attempts have rarely altered the actual manner in which power is exercised by the state and its elites given the deeper and historically rooted experience of arbitrary rule. Far from being remote, the arbitrary culture of power that emerged in many parts of the world continues to shape the fortunes of states. Ignoring this culture of power and the historical circumstances that have shaped it comes at a high price, as indicated by the ongoing democratic recession and erosion of liberal norms within states that are democracies.
South Asia's indigenous orientation towards the exercise of power has reasserted itself and produced a regression in the behavior of the ruling elite
2.2. On Culture of Power and Governance in Americas
New World Empires: Cultures of Power and Governance in the Americas (Routledge, 2025) is a wider reexamination of the evolution of the state, covering the indigenous orders of pre-Columbian America, the Spanish, Portuguese, and British Empires in the Americas, and their major successor states of Mexico, Brazil, and the United States. It explores mechanisms of colonial order construction and how that process prepared the ground for the emergence of national empires after independence, Niaz contends that:
“the destruction of indigenous demography and culture was so complete that the societies and states of the New World are colonial in their basic fabric, thereby diverging from the Asian and African experience of European colonial rule. Independence from European empires intensified repression, instability, and inequality in each of the successor states, turning the rhetoric of equality and revolutionism into a legitimizing device for extraordinarily brutal regimes that completed the colonizing mission begun by European states.”
This book explains these contradictions from a South Asian perspective and locates the Americas in the broader discourse of the global historical experience of governance and arbitrary rule.
2.3. On Culture of Power and Governance in South Asia
An Inquiry Into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent (Alhamra, 2006) evaluates the origin of the state in South Asia and offers a history of its evolution from the Indus Valley Civilisation to contemporary Indian and Pakistani, two post-colonial states. Professor Niaz focuses on major trajectories of imperial state formations ranging from Mauryas, Guptas, Delhi Sultanate, Timurid/Mughal Empire to the British Raj. He examines how their legacies have influenced and eventually shaped how power has, over time, been exercised in South Asia. He provides a historical survey of the state and explains a basic framework for understanding the development of the culture of power in the region under focus.
2.4. On Imperial Culture of Power and Governance in British India
The State During the British Raj: Imperial Governance in South Asia 1700 (OUP, 2020) describes the institutional history of British India which blends the modernization of existing political practices and institutions like the bureaucracy and the military and the introduction of Western political norms such as the rule of law, representation, and mass politics. It explores how British political and military domination of South Asia has influenced the political institutionalism in India and Pakistan both are post-colonial democracies. Professor Niaz argues that South Asian elites have overlooked the history of British India as a state, the successor of the Timurid (Mughal) Empire, and the precursor to contemporary South Asian states especially India and Pakistan. While commenting on the historian’s reluctantly to reengage with the historical processes of institutional building in South Asia, he argues that “the manner in which the arbitrarily run estates of the pre-British Indian periods were gradually converted into the form, a modern constitutional state is a direct result of British rule in India and Pakistan.”
An adverse outcome to the present crisis is practically inescapable because it is too deeply rooted in our historical, psychological, and biological conditioning.”
Elaborating upon the crisis of governance in South Asia, he maintains that it has aroused, partly, out of the inability of Indian and Pakistani elites to operate effectively and reform rigorously the institutional frameworks they have inherited from their colonial master-the British.
2.5. On Culture of Power and Governance in Pakistan
The Culture of Power and Governance in Pakistan, 1947-2008 (OUP, 2010) is a historical and philosophical study of the crisis of governance in Pakistan. Professor Niaz argues that:
“South Asia's indigenous orientation towards the exercise of power has reasserted itself and produced a regression in the behavior of the ruling elite. This has meant that in the sixty years of independence from British rule, the behavior of the state apparatus and political class has become more arbitrary, proprietorial, and delusional.”
Drawing upon the primary declassified record of Pakistan combined with a diverse array of theoretical insights, it generates a balanced debate on the crisis of governance in Pakistan. He further argues that “Pakistan's identity as a state over time has gone weakened whereas religious and primordial identities of Pakistan have gained strength.” Such change in the balance has posed a greater threat to the state’s maneuvered identity that has eventually caused the legitimacy crisis of the state governance in the eyes of its people. How to overcome the legitimacy crisis, he suggests that the state of Pakistan can rehabilitate its identity by devising long-term policy planning and investing in improving the quality of governance in the country.
3. The End of the Human Civilisations?
Downfall: Lessons from Our Final Century (CSCR, 2022) provides a mounting analysis of the present century challenges from climate change to a rational and what he terms a truth-teller leadership that is required not only to make wise and rational decisions to overcome the twenty-first-century challenges to the human civilisation but also to make their people think out of the world of illusions. It answers the questions of whether the downfall is inevitable given the vulnerabilities inherent to human nature; what problems we have always had in exercising power and discretion wisely; and how to avoid a downfall by making wise, rational, and timely policy decisions. Here the main argument of Professor Niaz is that “an adverse outcome to the present crisis is practically inescapable because it is too deeply rooted in our historical, psychological, and biological conditioning.” In explaining why the future of humanity seems to fail, this collection of essays also identifies what needs to change if civilisation is to survive.
It is argued that for course correction, the global elites, need to change how they think, redesign institutions, develop deep, intense global cooperation, and stop being optimistic and embrace realism, skepticism, and pessimism.
4. The Future from Macrohistory
I use the label ‘macrohistory’ for the study of the works of Professor Niaz because macrohistory studies past on very large scales. Macrohistory includes the scales of world history and historical sociology. Macrohistory is interdisciplinary because it crosses the boundaries between the humanities and the sciences. One of its main themes is how our sense of significance, agency, and causality can shift when we view the past on different scales and through different frames.
This essay has arguably explored the state of macrohistory in the works of Professor Niaz and it is argued that macrohistory may evolve as a teaching and research field that can enrich students' sense of historical processes in the larger scheme of things and that the historical sociology than to that of archival historical research, macrohistory, by scholarly raids into other disciplines, can help historians raise new questions and see old questions in new ways. The works of Professor Niaz and his broader framework of analysis offer examples of macrohistorical research on different scales and include a rare bibliography of macrohistorical scholarship.