EDITORIAL: It is difficult to understand why Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb felt the need to rope in independent experts to evaluate upcoming budget proposals. If the budget-making process is indeed as straightforward as it has always been — each ministry submits its wish list, and the finance ministry cuts it down to size — then why complicate matters by inviting outside analysis? Especially now, when the government is already working under the suffocating scrutiny of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and every policy signal carries weight beyond its face value.
It is a strange innovation at a critical time, and one that hints at a disconnect between textbook knowledge and political realities. A technocrat was brought in precisely to restore clarity, discipline, and fiscal seriousness to policymaking. Instead, we are seeing experimentation — an attempt to reinvent a core process that depends more on political trade-offs than purely technical assessments. What would these independent analysts accomplish that seasoned bureaucrats or the Finance Division itself could not?
Moreover, if more than 95 percent of the proposals are coming from the business community, as the finance minister admitted, then this exercise also risks becoming a box-ticking ritual. The concern is not that additional perspectives are being sought, but that the minister appears to be placing his faith in parallel channels of influence rather than institutional frameworks. This raises the uncomfortable question of whether the finance ministry is trying to outsource the hard political choices that must be made in this make-or-break budget cycle.
Add to that the announcement that a new Tax Policy Unit will now formulate fiscal direction, with its director general reporting directly to the finance minister, and a picture begins to emerge of a finance czar determined to reshape statecraft in his own image. Perhaps he forgets that the most elegant policy ideas rarely survive political contact unscathed. That is not a reason to despair — it is the nature of governance. The mistake is assuming it can be bypassed.
One sees a similar naivety in the minister’s optimism regarding the United States potentially reversing its 29 percent reciprocal tariffs on Pakistani goods. At a press briefing in Karachi, he declared that a high-level delegation will soon head to Washington to address the trade imbalance, with hopes that cotton and soybean exports could help narrow the gap. But this appears to misread not only the depth of current trade frictions, but also the broader global mood.
To assume that Washington will readily roll back tariff measures under current geopolitical conditions is overly ambitious, if not entirely misplaced. Tariffs are only one part of the protectionist toolkit. Non-tariff barriers — compliance, certification, environmental standards — play an equally potent role. The fact that Pakistan exports USD 5 billion worth of goods to the US but imports just USD 2.1 billion reflects structural imbalance in Washington’s point of view, not an oversight that can be rectified by simply proposing more export items.
It is also unclear whether any concrete groundwork has been laid for such a negotiation. The American trade bureaucracy is not known for its spontaneity, and any shift would require prior lobbying, deep bilateral trust, and an economic value proposition that aligns with US interests. It is not enough to hope that goodwill and argument will carry the day.
And herein lies the heart of the problem: a technocrat is trying to behave like a politician. By offering sweeping declarations, promising new institutional mechanisms, and floating diplomatic ambitions without groundwork, the finance minister risks overreaching his portfolio. Pakistan needs discipline, not vision. Results, not innovation. Clarity, not confusion.
This is not to downplay the finance minister’s many welcome statements—on ending sectoral exemptions, providing relief to salaried workers, or expanding IT exports. Nor is it to question his qualifications. But this is not the time to showcase ambition. It is the time to deliver outcomes. The finance minister is not a political leader mandated to build constituencies or shape public mood. He was brought in to stabilise the economy and restore fiscal credibility, especially with the IMF watching closely.
There is merit in a technocratic approach, but only when it stays within its boundaries. When a technocrat begins dabbling in political theatre — chasing diplomatic headlines or creating unnecessary procedural layers — the outcome is rarely constructive. Pakistan’s economy does not need reinvention. It needs stewardship. One hopes the finance minister comes to see the difference.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments