Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif reaffirmed his proposal for a Charter of Economy during a pre-budget gathering on Tuesday, calling all stakeholders to work together to provide a framework for economic progress. Shehbaz had proposed the same idea four years ago as the opposition leader at the outset of the PTI government’s term, but his pleas were ignored. But this time, as Speaker of the House, and presumably with the support of the majority of the parliament’s political parties, his comments have a lot more clout. While the PM’s overall goal is to improve exports by focusing on information technology, raising agricultural yields, and improving budgeting and debt management, the ‘how’ is up for debate and negotiation with stakeholders, including business owners and other political parties.
This is significant because it would assist the government in developing and implementing a short-term plan that is acceptable to all, allowing it to avoid distractions such as protests over the state of the economy, as the groups most likely to lead such agitation would have already agreed to the reforms. Finance Minister Miftah Ismail said at the same occasion that many of the adjustments in the 2019 budget will be aimed at balancing the books, which will necessitate spending cuts. He did, however, make a direct concession that his audience, which included some members of the ultra-rich elite, would have to pay — or suffer — their due part, saying that in the past, finance ministers would “meet with individuals like you and make tycoons richer.”
A similar, longer-term plan, if successfully negotiated, could ensure that economic goals are not missed due to the fragility of the day’s government — whether the incumbents or any future governments — because the broader framework within which planners operate will remain the same, with only minor tweaks to adapt to new challenges.
This would also link governments to a structure that prevents them from sabotaging the economy for political gain, as the previous government attempted with its energy price cuts and as nearly every government has done by cancelling or underfunding development projects approved by their predecessors.
Although there would undoubtedly be setbacks along the road, the stability that such a strategy would provide would be a welcome difference from the type of governance that we have become accustomed to over the previous many decades.
Foreign investors will be attracted to such stability because they will know that their investments will be reasonably safe due to policy continuity, even if governments change. While critics are correct in believing that such a policy will stifle future administrations’ efforts to implement broad-based social changes, the truth is that such acts, while important, cost money that the government does not have.
Foreign investors will be attracted to such stability because they will know that their investments will be reasonably safe due to policy continuity, even if governments change. While critics are correct in believing that such a policy will stifle future administrations’ efforts to implement broad-based social changes, the truth is that such acts, while important, cost money that the government does not have.
