SINCE the dawn of history, mankind has attempted to create a perfect world. Dreamers, philosophers, political scientists, sociologists and economists have struggled to map out the path to utopia, with varying degrees of success.

Every once in a while, these utopians have seized political power, or influenced those who wielded it, and tried to translate their dreams into reality. Each time, their attempts have ended in disaster, spilling more blood than any other cause.

In the last century, communism and national socialism have caused death and destruction on a truly monumental scale. Counting the people killed in the Second World War as well as the domestic victims of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, we are probably in the 100-million range. And yet, despite the slaughter that has taken place in the name of ideals, it must be recognised that the initial impulse was a well-meaning desire to create a better world. It was only when the original dream fell into the hands of power-hungry men that the nightmare began.

The desire to change a vile status quo and give ordinary people self-respect and a decent life should surely be lauded. The problem always starts when the utopian blueprint, interpreted by ambitious men, takes on the rigidity of divine revelation. With all the zeal and enthusiasm of new converts, they seek to spread the new religion far and wide. And with all their revolutionary fervour, they defend their beliefs against real and imaginary criticism and enemies. For them, the truth is so self-evident that they are doing the rest of mankind a favour by converting us to the new faith, so that we can all march to utopia hand in hand.

And if the idea of a man-made utopia can cast such a strong spell, how much more powerful the enchantment and excitement of a divinely ordained order? If ideologues can defend their utopian blueprint to the death, to what extent will religious zealots go in order to preserve sectarian purity? Another common theme is that both kinds of ideologues are convinced that their doctrines contain solutions to every predicament. Thus, instead of applying logic and reason to solving problems, they seek answers in their guiding theories and holy texts.

And once a serious attempt to establish heaven on earth is launched, anybody standing in the way is an enemy, and must be removed, usually by violent means. Thus, Mao and Stalin slaughtered “class enemies”, and the “running dogs of capitalism” by the million. Moral justification for this slaughter lay in the doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number. In this murderous calculus, the most brutal acts were justified by the dictates of ideological purity, and the need to keep the revolution unsullied. “Counter-revolutionaries” and “deviants” can expect no mercy from these self-righteous ideologues.

In his determination to keep the bloodline of the “pure Aryan man” free of pollution, Hitler consigned millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals to the gas chambers. Stalin and Mao demanded that all “enemies of the people”, a blanket category that could include anybody, be killed. Thus, witch-hunts would regularly send thousands to kangaroo-trials and the firing squads. Both revolutions devoured their own children.

Closer to us, Iran’s Khomeni revolution has not caused havoc on the same scale, but it has been very severe on the voices of dissent. Anybody not agreeing with the governing ideology, or caught breaking the moral guidelines laid down by the ayatollahs, has suffered grievously. Newspapers containing critical articles have been shut down. Candidates not hewing to the official line have been barred from running in elections.

And women and minorities have seen their rights being eroded. Iran’s ruling clergy’s grip on power has been strengthened by their monopoly on the interpretation of the faith. Clearly, any ideologically driven system is incompatible with democracy.

Perhaps we have been fortunate in Pakistan in having a range of competing visions of the one true faith. This has prevented the emergence of a single utopian blueprint. Although the Deobandi school, supported by its Saudi links, has tended to dominate, other schools of thought have fought hard to retain their distinct identity.

This plurality has slowed the progress of the march towards a faith-based system of government. Nevertheless, proponents of different, and often warring, fundamentalist visions have not been deterred from hijacking the secular dream of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

One problem ideologues of every stripe suffer from — but refuse to recognise — is that having seized power, they are not qualified to run a modern state. All they have studied is their own secular or holy texts, and they base their grip on power on this knowledge. But the complex problems we face today demand far more sophisticated responses than recourse to theoretical solutions framed for a different era.

Sensing this inner inadequacy, the guardians of the flame insist on the eternal verities contained in their texts, thereby keeping experts out of the ruling circle. Here, only the true believers are allowed a place, framing policies that are often ruinous.

So given our experience of the fate of utopian societies, why do we continue on this futile quest? Why do we not instead engage in the more fruitful task of improving ourselves? Why must we try and remake society in the shape of some chimera?

The Sufis, for instance, seek inner peace and a personal path to purity. One largely successful attempt at improving the world has been the emergence of the welfare state in Western Europe, but its foundations have drawn strength from the fact that no ideology is driving it.

Basically, it has sought to level the playing field, and create a safety net for citizens left behind in the capitalist rat race. But this system has emerged as a result of a social compact, reinforced by support across the political spectrum. It has not been imposed by force, and this is why it works, no matter which party is in power.

And yet, despite all the evidence, idealists continue their search for utopia. Unfortunately, it is the hard, ambitious men (seldom women) who seize upon their ideas, and subject millions to tyranny and turmoil.