It is regrettable that instead of owning crucial decisions, our policymakers often attempt to frame even positive reforms as unavoidable actions imposed by external creditors. This tendency to deflect responsibility onto foreign stakeholders has created a public perception that necessary policy changes stem from the demands of unsympathetic international lenders rather than being proactive measures taken in the nation’s best interest.
A recent example is the finance minister’s announcement about government downsizing. During a press conference, the minister emphasized that the decision to streamline the government’s structure was driven by structural benchmarks set by the IMF. Although he acknowledged that the move was also in Pakistan’s interest, the framing gave the impression that it was more of a compulsion than a deliberate reform aimed at improving governance.
The reality is that reducing the size of the government is essential. The nation’s fragile economic condition cannot sustain an oversized, inefficient bureaucracy. The minister himself disclosed that many public sector entities and departments facing cuts had failed to deliver results for over two decades. Yet, some of these entities requested an additional six months to improve—a plea that seems to admit they had the capacity for change but deliberately avoided doing so. Fortunately, their request for leniency was denied. However, presenting this necessary reform as an IMF mandate instead of a sovereign decision raises questions about the government’s commitment to accountability and efficiency.
The government should have taken pride in showcasing this step as a decisive move to hold public institutions accountable for decades of resource mismanagement. The reluctance to do so reflects a concerning lack of urgency in addressing the misuse of national resources. Furthermore, the finance minister’s evasiveness regarding questions on recent salary hikes for judges and certain bureaucrats, as well as whether cuts would extend to favored ministries, adds to the skepticism.
While it is understandable that the finance minister, being a technocrat, may feel the need to shield the elected leadership from criticism, this should not come at the expense of sound decision-making. It is imperative that the government owns its reforms and demonstrates a clear commitment to eliminating inefficiencies and wastefulness.
