Shifting the Axis of Power: The Challenge of 2026
Mohammed Ajeeb CBE
Bradford: Tomorrow we shall be saying goodbye to 2025 and embracing the advent of 2026 with great hope and show.
But irrespective of the hopes and aspirations we like to attach to our immediate future, it would be folly to ignore our past and fail to learn lessons from recent and historical events.
An old saying that past time does not return, reflects a universal truth: time is irreversible. Once a moment or a period is gone, it is gone forever. There is another popular saying: “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift.” This sentiment encourages us to focus on the present and the future, as the past cannot be changed or relived except through memory.
Although time and tide wait for none, memories of one’s personal best and worst experiences, observations, and recent and distant history cannot easily be erased from our minds.
They continue to influence our attitudes and shape our lives. Such memories also help us cultivate new ideas, refine our thought processes, and affect our judgment of emerging global changes.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistans-troubled-electoral-landscape/
There are living testimonies that refresh our memories of the salient events and transformations that dominated global thinking in 2025.
These included the prevalence of political instability and volatility worldwide; the ugly rise of extreme nationalism driven by far-right ideology; the passive observation and approval of genocide in Gaza; the war in Ukraine; and the persistent decline of the global economy.
The inception of competition among the most powerful old and emerging nations, though often resembling a dangerous dogfight, was apparent and undeniable. The conflict between Pakistan and India in May 2025 posed a grave threat to South Asia and beyond, raising fears of potential nuclear confrontation.
The issue of asylum seekers and immigration from non-white countries to the Western world became the most pressing item on the political agendas of leaders in the United States and Western Europe.
This issue was hijacked by far-right political parties and their activists to incite hostility against non-white minorities. History is there for us to learn from, yet very often we deliberately ignore it. Instead, we repeat it in pursuit of missed self-interests, power, and advantage.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/is-military-intervention-in-pakistani-politics-avoidable/
History can be a good or a bad teacher, it depends on what we choose to learn from it.
What, then, is the difference between Christopher Columbus chopping off the hands and heads of Indigenous American people to enslave them, and the missiles launched by modern presidents and prime ministers that amputate and decapitate lives across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere? There is none.
The label once imposed on Native Americans, “soulless creatures without faith”, was replaced not long ago with “barbaric killers of Islamic faith.” Both labels are baseless, dehumanising, and self-serving. Ruthless violence has always been used to colonise people through fear, serving a select few seated at the top of the pyramid.
Politicians take our human rights hostage. They use those rights as bargaining chips. They speak of racism, economic justice, social justice, and even peace, yet their grip on the hostage remains firm.
The very words used to draw people into the system come from politicians who approve bombings and intensify economic wars against those who suffer most. In such dire circumstances, the role of many elected officials is reduced to that of negotiators at best.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/bitches-of-the-riches/
Instead of empowering people with their inherent human rights, they strike deals with ruling elites, urging them to provide at least food and water to prevent revolt. In turn, people begin to worship these negotiators and beg for mercy.
This grim pattern of our recent past has become an essential part of history repeating itself without any meaningful learning or progress.
Looking toward the future, we must acknowledge that we live under a feudal and oligarchic order whose latent designs point toward gradual control over our private lives and liberties, driven by trillions of dollars invested in the advancement of new technologies.
The human desire to subjugate and enslave weaker fellow beings remains insatiable. Consequently, the dream of global peace still appears far from reach.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistan-an-unfinished-business/
Donald Trump does not seem tired of repeating his claim that he has already stopped eight wars and that a peace accord to end the Russia-Ukraine war is soon to be signed. He is impatiently waiting for his “honourable acts” to be rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, his remorse-less welcome in Washington, last weekend of the renowned war criminal and Zionist leader Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is clear evidence of the United States’ double standards when it comes to supporting certain wars and certain individuals.
Trump’s continued support for Netanyahu’s Zionist government, along with Israel’s policy of sustained onslaughts against Palestinians and its refusal to engage meaningfully with Hamas over disarmament, does not bode well for future prospects for peace in the region.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/pakistan-versus-democracy-2/
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has proven too clever and politically shrewd for Trump, choosing to prolong the war rather than bring it to an end. it.
As a result, American global hegemony and its economy appear to be in evident decline.
All available evidence suggests that 2026 is likely to be the year of Asia. The consolidation of China’s economy and its defence capabilities will continue, while Western economies may further deteriorate.
In India, the grip of Modi’s Hindutva government may weaken. Conversely, Pakistan may emerge as a leader in the Muslim world, potentially forging a common defence pact among Muslim-majority nations while maintaining balanced relations with the United States, China, and Russia, though blindly trusting Trump could prove a serious and costly mistake.
However, the restoration of democracy in Pakistan remains uncertain. Instead, the hybrid political system may become further consolidated and introduce changes to replace the current political entities.
Western European countries and the United Kingdom are likely to remain preoccupied with economic challenges and immigration debates. The rise of the far right and populist politics may fuel polarisation and hatred against visible minorities.
Muslims in Europe are likely to become primary targets of far-right racist groups and parties, as dehumanisation and hatred risk escalating into social conflict.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/a-heated-planet-an-unequal-burden/
This, in turn, may deepen divisions and suffering, reinforcing invisible racial and economic caste systems and trapping societies in a vicious cycle where people fight among themselves, wasting resources and strengthening the very structures that oppress them.
The question remains: how do we overcome the fear that confines us within an imperial cage and prevents us from realising our humanistic potential, the potential to build a truly democratic society for all, based on shared understanding, rather than one where division, scarcity, and pain are exploited as sources of power?
How do we spread the hope of stepping out of this cage? How do we educate one another to distinguish irrational fears imposed by ruling elites from the healthy fear of the unknown that accompanies the birth of a new era of humanity, a fear that fades as it transforms into the courage to act?
The author is former Lord Mayor of Bradford UK.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
Here is my measured, substantive commentary on the article—engaging with its ideas rather than attacking or endorsing it wholesale.
Overall Assessment:
Mohammed Ajeeb Shaib’s article is a moral–political reflection rather than a predictive policy paper. Its strength lies in its ethical clarity and historical consciousness, but it also carries weaknesses in evidence balance, generalisation, and analytical precision. It reads more as a warning sermon than a strategic roadmap—and that is both its power and its limitation.
Key Strengths
1. Moral Consistency Across History
One of the article’s strongest contributions is its insistence that violence, dehumanisation, and imperial domination have not changed in essence, only in language and technology. The comparison between colonial atrocities and modern warfare is intentionally provocative, but philosophically sound. It forces readers to confront uncomfortable continuities that polite diplomacy often masks.
2. Clear Critique of Selective Human Rights
The argument that human rights are often instrumentalised by political elites—invoked rhetorically while violated in practice—is persuasive. This critique resonates strongly in the context of Gaza, Ukraine, and broader global power asymmetries. The article correctly identifies double standards as a core driver of global cynicism.
3. Insight into Far-Right Politics and Fear Economies
The discussion of immigration, race, and far-right mobilisation in Europe and the US is grounded in observable trends. The framing of fear as a political currency—used to divide societies and consolidate power—is one of the article’s most intellectually solid themes.
Key Weaknesses and Limitations
1. Overgeneralisation and Moral Absolutism
While moral clarity is valuable, the article sometimes collapses complex geopolitical realities into binary judgments. Equating all modern military actions with colonial-era atrocities risks flattening important distinctions—such as international law frameworks, internal dissent, and geopolitical constraints. Moral equivalence can illuminate injustice, but it can also obscure nuance.
2. Predictive Claims Without Sufficient Grounding
Assertions such as “2026 is likely to be the year of Asia” or Pakistan emerging as a leader of the Muslim world are ambitious but weakly substantiated. These projections would benefit from economic indicators, demographic data, or strategic alliances to avoid appearing aspirational rather than analytical.
3. Pakistan Analysis Leans Toward Hope Over Structure
The article acknowledges Pakistan’s democratic fragility but still gestures toward a potential leadership role. This tension is not fully resolved. Structural constraints—economic dependency, institutional power balances, and internal political fragmentation—are underexplored, making the optimism feel emotionally driven rather than structurally reasoned.
4. The “Imperial Cage” Metaphor Needs an Exit Strategy
The closing questions are philosophically compelling, but the article stops where readers may most want guidance. It diagnoses the cage well—but offers no concrete mechanisms (education models, political reforms, civic strategies) for escaping it. As a result, the piece inspires reflection more than action.
Tone and Positioning
The tone is passionate, mournful, and morally urgent, consistent with the author’s background as a civic leader rather than an academic strategist. This works well for consciousness-raising, but it may alienate readers seeking pragmatic policy discussion or balanced geopolitical analysis.
Final Reflection
This article succeeds as a moral alarm bell for 2026 rather than a strategic forecast. Its real value is not in predicting who will rise or fall, but in reminding readers that power structures persist because fear, division, and selective morality are continually recycled.
If strengthened with:
clearer sourcing,
more differentiated geopolitical analysis, and
concrete pathways for civic renewal,
it could evolve from a powerful opinion piece into a serious framework for democratic and humanistic renewal.
In its current form, it is best read not as a map of the future—but as a mirror held up to the present.
Ajeeb Bhai has articulated, with remarkable clarity, how the global power landscape may evolve as we approach 2026. His analysis situates current conflicts within a broader geopolitical realignment that is already underway.
It is difficult to envision Donald Trump—or any future U.S. administration operating under similar ideological constraints—reconsidering Washington’s unqualified support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The policy trajectory suggests continued endorsement despite mounting international criticism. At the same time, there is little indication that Hamas would abandon armed resistance while Israel persists in the systematic destruction of Palestinian lives, infrastructure, and territory. This entrenched cycle of violence appears set to continue, with devastating humanitarian consequences and no credible diplomatic off-ramp in sight.
Ajeeb Bhai further anticipates the emergence of an Asian bloc as a consequential center of global power, with Pakistan positioned to assume a leadership role within the Muslim world. However, he tempers this projection with a critical caveat: Pakistan’s internal political dynamics may undergo a realignment that marginalizes certain political forces and entrenches what he describes as a “hybrid” system of governance. Such a trajectory risks further weakening democratic norms, limiting political pluralism, and undermining prospects for the restoration of a genuinely representative democracy.
Equally concerning is the Pakistani establishment’s increasingly comfortable relationship with Washington. The growing perception that the United States is managing Pakistan through indirect influence or proxy arrangements could prove damaging. In the medium to long term, this may erode Pakistan’s strategic autonomy, complicate its relations with emerging power blocs, and potentially lead to regional and international isolation—particularly if global alignments continue to shift away from Western dominance.
Taken together, these dynamics suggest a future marked by intensifying geopolitical polarization, unresolved regional conflicts, and internal political strains that could significantly shape Pakistan’s role on the world stage in the years ahead.