Why Political Theory Matters in the Examination Hall
States do not act on power and economic interest alone. Religious identity, political ideals and historical memory also influence how governments define their interests. Pakistan’s external relations illustrate this complexity: religious affinity has supported close defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia, yet a shared faith has not prevented tension with Afghanistan.
For CSS and PMS candidates, a theory is useful only when it explains a real event. This guide, therefore, applies each of the three theories to one Pakistan-focused example, and then evaluates its strengths and limits.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
Three Theories, Three Questions
• Samuel Huntington asks whether cultural and civilizational identity drives international conflict.
• Francis Fukuyama asks whether liberal democracy has become the leading model of political legitimacy.
• Peter Taylor and Colin Flint ask how states identify their allies, threats and strategic objectives.
1. Huntington: Does Identity Shape Conflict?
In a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs, later expanded into a 1996 book, Samuel Huntington argued that after the Cold War, cultural and civilizational differences would become a principal source of conflict. He identified Western, Islamic, Hindu, Sinic, Japanese, and Orthodox civilizations, among others, and expected friction to be sharpest where they meet. He did not claim that religion causes every conflict; his point was that identity influences how disputes develop and how they are perceived.
To test the theory, candidates should ask four questions. Is the dispute framed in cultural or religious terms? Are identities used to explain opposition? Are outside actors backing one side because of shared identity? Do security, territory or resources offer a stronger explanation?
The example: Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both populations are predominantly Muslim and share many cultural connections, yet relations are strained by border security concerns and Pakistan’s allegation that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) operates from Afghan territory. The Afghan Taliban authorities dispute this allegation. If shared civilization guaranteed cooperation, this tension would be difficult to explain.
What the example shows. The case challenges Huntington directly: conflict can occur within a single civilization, because governments often place national security, territorial control and political survival above cultural similarity. The theory remains useful for understanding how identity shapes political narratives, but it cannot replace an analysis of strategic interests.
Limitations: Civilizations are not politically unified blocs. The theory gives insufficient weight to economic interests, territorial disputes, and domestic politics, and it can encourage the portrayal of conflicts as unavoidable cultural confrontations. Edward Said, in The Clash of Ignorance (2001), argued that it oversimplifies complex societies and histories.
2. Fukuyama: Has Liberal Democracy Won the Argument?
In a 1989 essay, expanded into a 1992 book, Francis Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy had emerged as the strongest ideological model after the decline of communism. The phrase “end of history” is often misunderstood. He did not predict an end to wars or political disputes; he suggested that the ideological contest over the best form of government might have been settled in favour of liberal democracy.
Two questions help test the claim. Do states still regard elections, constitutions and political rights as sources of legitimacy? And do democratic institutions actually function as intended?
The example: Pakistan’s democratic institutions. Elections, parliament and constitutional government remain central to political debate in Pakistan, yet the balance between elected and unelected institutions remains contested. The Economist Intelligence Unit classified Pakistan as a hybrid regime in 2022 and as an authoritarian regime in 2023 and 2024. The case separates the appeal of an ideal from the quality of its implementation: democratic principles can retain legitimacy even where institutions function imperfectly. The wider picture is similar, as Freedom House reported in March 2026 that global freedom had declined for the twentieth consecutive year in 2025.
Limitations: Authoritarian systems, notably China, continue to offer alternatives. Democratic institutions may weaken even where elections persist, and the theory gives limited attention to the influence of power and economic interests.
3. Taylor and Flint: How Do States Define Friends and Threats?
A geopolitical code is a state’s method of identifying its allies, rivals and threats, defining its objectives, and justifying these choices to its own population and the wider world. It can be examined through five questions: who the allies are, who the threats are, how friendly relations are sustained, how threats are met, and how policy is explained.
Applied to Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia emerge as principal partners, while India and militancy are the main threats. Partnerships are maintained through defence cooperation, diplomacy and economic engagement, and threats are met with deterrence, border security and diplomatic measures. Justification rests on sovereignty and national security and, in certain relationships, on Islamic solidarity.
The example: Pakistan’s turn to economic security. The National Security Policy 2022-2026 placed economic security at the centre of national security thinking, linking national strength to economic stability, investment and trade rather than to military preparedness alone. The case shows that a geopolitical code is not static: a state revises its priorities when it reassesses what threatens or sustains it.
Limitations: Stated policy may diverge from actual conduct. Leaders may invoke security or religion to secure domestic support, and the framework does not fully account for structural constraints such as debt and limited resources.
4. Combining the Theories in One Answer
Candidates should avoid presenting the theories in isolation. A stronger approach applies each to a different dimension of one issue. In the case of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Huntington explains the pull of shared identity; Taylor explains how the relationship advances defence, diplomatic and economic objectives and how it is justified; Fukuyama is less directly relevant but may inform wider questions of legitimacy. A theory that does not assist the argument should be left out.
5. From Description to Analysis: A Four-Step Method
1. State the theory’s central claim in one or two sentences.
2. Select one relevant example.
3. Connect the example to the theory, showing whether it supports or challenges it.
4. Evaluate what the theory explains and what it leaves out.
For instance, “Huntington’s theory applies to Saudi relations” becomes analytical when expanded: shared Islamic identity strengthens the relationship, but defence cooperation and economic interests also shape it.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
Errors That Cost Marks
• Asserting that Huntington attributed all conflict to religion.
• Stating that Fukuyama predicted the end of wars.
• Equating a government’s public justification with its actual strategic interests.
• Citing examples without explaining their relevance to the theory.
• Quoting rapidly changing developments without verifying dates and sources.
Concluding Remarks
Huntington draws attention to cultural identity, Fukuyama to the standing of liberal democracy, and Taylor to the way states define and justify their choices. Each is best demonstrated through a single, well-chosen example: Pakistan and Afghanistan test the claim that shared civilization ensures cooperation, Pakistan’s democratic institutions show the gap between ideal and practice, and its turn to economic security shows a geopolitical code in transition. High-scoring answers test theories against evidence, acknowledge their limitations, and reach a balanced conclusion.
