Pakistan has finally recognized that economic challenges– sprouting from high expenditures and low earnings– are strong enough to penetrate the body politic. On June 17, the Prime Minister’s Office announced the formation of the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) to attract investment from countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in the fields of Defence, Agriculture, Minerals, Information Technology and Energy.
The announcement shows that Pakistan is back to the drawing board. Except for the field of information technology, the rest are the same as those Pakistan struggled to develop in the 1960s. Another difference could be that, in earlier times, Pakistan sought economic dividends through industrialization, especially the agro-based industry (including the textile sector), but this time Pakistan has left the textile sector to its own devices.
Pakistan cannot achieve economic stability if its expenditures (especially non-developmental expenses) outclass its earnings. The annual budget for the fiscal year 2023-2024 speaks volumes for the imbalance. The point is simple: Pakistan detests reducing its expenditures but keeps on expecting speculative foreign investment, as is the case with the rationale for the constitution of the SIFC
It is apparent that the selection of the sectors has not been done to reflect the need on the ground. Instead, the sectors have been chosen to match the needs of the GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates). These are the Gulf countries with which Pakistan has already enjoyed friendly and brotherly relations. Pakistan now intends to target them to be a supplier of their demand in the selected five fields.
Pakistan may be thinking that it can invite investment in the defence sector to increase defence production of arms and other hardware required by the GCC countries. Similarly, Pakistan may be planning to invite investment in the agriculture sector to grow crops required by the people inhabiting the GCC countries. Nevertheless, it is not known why investors from the GCC countries may be interested in investing in the rest of the fields (Minerals, Information Technology and Energy).
On the list comprising five fields, the field of Information Technology (IT) is an odd addition. Not any GCC country but Pakistan itself has to invest in this sector. In the 1990s, the decade marred by political wrangling, Pakistan remained distracted from the need to invest heavily in the IT field. In the same decade, India wholeheartedly invested in the IT field and that has been yielding dividends now. It is the IT-related earning which enhanced India’s foreign exchange reserves.
Despite all neglect, the IT field is not barren. Dr Umar Saif, who served as Chairman of the Punjab Information Technology Board (2011– 2018), was one of those who served the country. He became a victim of political squabbling. In 2018, he was asked to stay away from the IT field functional in the public sector. He had to resign from the position of the Vice Chancellor of Information Technology University.
This is how Pakistan dishonours its indigenous talent and then begs for help from foreign investors. Dr Saif is one example. There may be dozens more IT experts who left the country in disillusionment. They may come back, if they are invited and incentives are given. India does so enthusiastically to expand the IT field and earn more foreign exchange.
For instance, Dr Saif may be engaged to head the IT field and invite more experts from across the world to transform the priorities of the youth in favour of learning artificial intelligence. Instead of paying millions of rupees to travelling agents to reach the shores of Europe, the unemployed youth may spend half of that money in learning artificial intelligence which would make them self-employed to be qualified for living and earning in Europe.
Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, who is an Organic Chemist by profession, and who served as Chairman Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (2002 – 2008) did wonders in inviting foreign qualified faculties to Pakistan and upgrading Pakistan’s field of science and technology. He established a mechanism of sending Pakistani students on scholarships to the renowned universities of the world. He also became a victim of political bickering. Dr Rahman still advocates for the knowledge economy. Unfortunately, the present government has not engaged him to let him contribute to the idea of enhancing Pakistan foreign exchange reserves through the means of knowledge economy.
Unfortunately, instead of relying on the ablest of minds, the incumbent government is relying on the traditional centre of power, the Army. This is where, in this hour of crisis, Pakistan is taking a wrong turn.
The pronounced structure of the SIFC consists of three tiers. In the first tier (the Apex committee headed by the Prime Minster), the Chief of Army Staff is a member– by special invitation. In principle, this tier should be populated with people like Dr Saif, Dr Rahman and the like. There is no dearth of the brightest in the private sector.
In the second tier (the Executive Committee), the Army is included to act as national coordinator. In principle, this tier should have civil servants who come through the country-wide competitive examination and who are far more able and more qualified than the Army officers. After 2018, it was the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) that discouraged the civil servants from performing. There is no reason the Prime Minister Office should discriminate against Pakistan’s talented minds working in the civil service.
In the last tier (the Implementation Committee), the Army would be an implementing force through a Director General. This is the place which may be suitable for the Army officers. They are trained to implement a decision, as an institutional routine.
Apparently, the main limitation of the SIFC is that it is focused on one region, the Gulf. Another limitation is that, in the name of reviving the economy, the SIFC is trying to create another “same page”, the forerunner of which worked well from 2018 to 2021, but got torn off in 2022.
Nevertheless, Pakistan cannot achieve economic stability if its expenditures (especially non-developmental expenses) outclass its earnings. The annual budget for the fiscal year 2023-2024 speaks volumes for the imbalance. The point is simple: Pakistan detests reducing its expenditures but keeps on expecting speculative foreign investment, as is the case with the rationale for the constitution of the SIFC.
If Pakistan cut its coat according to its cloth, Pakistan would earn honour in the world. Not the Army but sound economic policies are a guarantee for the economic revival and survival of Pakistan.
