Article Type

Article

Description

The proposal is flawed on several grounds and must be discarded. First, any extra-constitutional move, even if endorsed by the higher judiciary, would, in the absence of support from the main political parties, face serious difficulties in enforcing unpopular reforms. Street protests against and media censure of higher energy prices, taxation of traders and retrenchment of workers in SOEs would exacerbate economic instability. Second, given global economic conditions and the extent of domestic shocks, it is not certain that a technocratic government would turn the economy around in such a short span of time. Third, the inspiration for this model, drawn from the economic progress made under Gens Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, is half-baked; a comprehensive approach reveals that the costs and damages incurred far exceed the economic benefits. Notions regarding the economic performance of the 1960s, 1980s and 2000-2007 are based on the premise that these regimes were not looking for popular electoral support and, thus, could take tough, unpopular decisions to reignite the economy. The truth is that each of the four regimes sought legitimacy in different ways but were unable to secure it. The collateral damage inflicted by extra-constitutional governments have weakened the foundation of the state and led to adversarial relations between various institutions of governance. The separation of East Pakistan in 1971 can be ascribed to the policies and practices pursued by Ayub and Yahya. Zia’s period saw the rise of religious fundamentalism. Musharraf’s reforms were reversed as soon as his government went.

Publication Source

Dawn

Publication Date

1-5-2023

Pages

1-3

Notes

The writer served as a non-elected member of the federal cabinet.

Download

Share

COinS