An understatement would be to say that the economy of the country is spiralling out of control. That the political emergency has added to the ongoing confusion can’t be questioned. We are facing a full-blown crisis when we add the courtly drama that takes place on a daily basis. There is no doubt that elections are significant and ought to be held within the time frame stipulated by the constitution.
However, many are asking: If there are no concrete steps taken for economic reforms after an election, will the economy remain stable? That may have been on PML-N supremo Mian Nawaz Sharif’s mind, as he has stated that political issues—including, in his opinion, the election case before the Supreme Court—and immediate decisions could have repercussions for the economy that could see the dollar rise to Rs 500. No one, inside or outside of government, should find that reassuring.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif provided an answer to this question earlier in the year, stating that Pakistan requires a comprehensive dialogue between all stakeholders to ensure the country’s and its people’s prosperity. What’s more, this was not whenever Shehbaz Sharif first discussed this. When he was the opposition leader, he even proposed a charter for economics and called for a grand dialogue up until recently.
When Imran Khan was in charge, the PTI turned down his request for an economic policy charter. The party also said that the government only wanted to distract attention from its economic failures and rejected his request for a dialogue following the vote of no confidence. Because elections without conflict resolution will not solve any problems, it would be prudent for all political stakeholders to sit down together and come up with a new social contract and, more importantly, a charter for the economy now that we are facing a constitutional crisis and the systematic collapse of every institution’s credibility.
Pakistan needs legitimate financial changes and an assurance that all ideological groups will adhere to them, paying little mind to who comes to control. It is critical that everybody settles on issues like duty change, for example, expanding local charges, forcing farming expenses, burdening retailers, and burdening different areas. In the event that there is an agreement on privatising some administration resources, the public authority ought to feel free to make it happen. No party can reverse any commitments made to the IMF.
Restructuring the oil and gas industry is necessary. This is only the tip of the iceberg; a proper charter of the economy would undoubtedly also examine our economy’s deeply rooted structural flaws. In order to accomplish this, all parties involved need to put aside their petty political disagreements and refocus on the plight of the hungry.
A single economic manifesto, courtesy of the economic charter, will deny the country the chance to express its choice for one development paradigm over the other. One cannot deny that many PTI voters did vote for “change,” even though Imran Khan’s individual appeal may have contributed to the PTI’s vote total in 2013. So, a steady transition from dynastic and personality politics to issue-based politics is apparent. The nation will be at the mercy of dynastic politics if there is a shared economic charter, which will remove issues from politics.
