It is disheartening to witness how government officials in Pakistan often shy away from taking ownership of critical decisions, instead attributing them to external pressures. Even well-intentioned reforms are presented as unavoidable obligations imposed by international creditors, rather than deliberate actions in the country’s best interest. This trend of deflecting responsibility to foreign stakeholders not only undermines public confidence but also portrays necessary policy changes as forced measures rather than proactive governance.
A recent example is the finance minister’s announcement on government rightsizing. While acknowledging that downsizing a bloated government was crucial for Pakistan’s survival, the minister emphasized that the move stemmed from structural benchmarks set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This framing diluted the narrative of reform, making it seem like an externally dictated mandate rather than a purposeful step toward better governance. Such positioning erodes public trust in leadership and reinforces the perception of excessive external interference in state matters.
The reality is that Pakistan’s economic condition leaves no room for inefficiencies. The size and inefficacy of the government’s bureaucracy have long burdened the national exchequer, draining resources that could have been better utilized. The finance minister himself revealed that many public sector entities had failed to deliver results for decades. Astonishingly, despite decades of underperformance, these entities sought further extensions to deliver on promises they never fulfilled. The decision to shut down or scale back such departments was necessary, but why frame it as an IMF prescription?
The government should have taken pride in its decision to hold public sector entities accountable. By framing rightsizing as a sovereign initiative, it could have sent a powerful message about its commitment to ending decades of inefficiency and waste. Instead, its hesitancy to own the decision signals a broader unwillingness to confront wastefulness or take tough decisions head-on. This approach raises concerns about the sincerity of reform efforts and the ability to deliver tangible change.
Further complicating the issue, the finance minister deflected questions about recent salary increases granted to judges and certain bureaucratsan expenditure that seems inconsistent with austerity measures. Additionally, he avoided addressing whether cuts would apply to influential ministries and departments, leaving the impression that some institutions may continue to enjoy unwarranted privileges.
Reform, especially in a struggling economy, requires bold leadership and transparent decision-making. Pakistan’s officials must break free from the habit of shifting blame to external actors and embrace the reforms needed to restore financial stability. True ownership of decisions, framed as actions taken in the nation’s best interest, can build public trust and inspire confidence in governance. Without this shift in attitude, the credibility of reform efforts will remain in question.
