Federal Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal, speaking at a policy discussion on Thursday, said that political instability, not policy failure, was holding Pakistan back. This is taken as an article of faith by the present government, but itself is hotly disputed in the present highly partisan atmosphere. It does not help that Mr Iqbal is apparently contradicting the PML(N) traditional stance by saying that infrastructure spending was the measure of progress. The position seems an abandonment of the view that democracy is the best guarantor of prosperity, because it means that the people collectively decide on measures that lead to prosperity. However, one of the problems of democracy is that the debate is usually full of noisy exchanges, and a cacophony that many find frightening. They seem to forget that the most perfect silence is that of the grave, and that silence may conceal frightening misery, even bestiality. The quest for stability at all costs may have its proponents, but it is not compatible with the constitutional presence we have at present.
What Mir Iqbal may have in mind are the PTI’s efforts to claim victory in the 2024 election, and the release of its founder, Mr Imran Khan, from jail. Political instability, Mr Iqbal implies, means not reversing predecessors’ policies, and allowing a continuity presently absent, He did not exemplify which PTI policies he thought were dropped even though worthy of retention. He also did not mention what he thought should happen if the party taking office thought the policies in place were actually wrongheaded. He seems not to take account of the fact that the world over, policies are usually preserved, and the only difference political stability or instability makes is who enjoys the sweets of office. The PML(N) does not so much have different policies, as the promise that it will manage the economy better.
Mr Iqbal’s defence of the policy mix, when he says there has been no policy failure, is also interesting, because it implies belief in the IMF prescriptions, which have not worked so far. However, he was right to note that resistance to change is one of the great failings of the public sector, and that human development, despite a burgeoning population, remained weak. Also, at the same time, seeking any destination must be normative. To achieve the level of China or that of the USA is not just a matter of degree of development, but of type. China has Uighurs, the USA the homeless.
