Fajer Rehman
It is regrettable that in Pakistan, important decisions made at the highest levels of government are frequently presented as though they are the result of external pressure rather than domestic necessity. This tendency to shift responsibility, particularly to foreign creditors, has resulted in even necessary reforms being framed as inconvenient obligations rather than vital steps taken for the country’s well-being. The relentless focus on external actors, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has created a public perception that necessary policy changes are being imposed from the outside, rather than being embraced for their inherent value. This undermines the credibility of reform efforts and distorts their real intentions.
One such recent example of this dynamic was demonstrated during a press conference by the finance minister, where he explained the government’s decision to rightsize the public sector. While the reduction of a bloated government bureaucracy is undoubtedly a move in the right direction for a country grappling with severe economic challenges, the finance minister seemed overly eager to present the measure as a requirement imposed by the IMF. Instead of framing it as a proactive decision in Pakistan’s best interest, he appeared to be deflecting responsibility, suggesting that the government had no choice but to take action because of stringent structural benchmarks set by the IMF. While he did concede that the move was ultimately beneficial for Pakistan, the overwhelming emphasis on external obligation detracted from the reform’s positive aspects and painted the decision as one of necessity rather than choice.
The reality is that the size of Pakistan’s government needs to be reduced. The country can no longer afford to carry the weight of an oversized and inefficient bureaucracy, especially considering the deteriorating economic conditions. The finance minister’s press conference, however, revealed that many of the public sector entities and departments slated for downsizing admitted that they had achieved little over the past two to three decades. Despite this, some still requested extensions to meet targets and deliver results. This was, in essence, an acknowledgment that these organizations had the potential to improve, but chose not to over the course of many years. These entities had been given ample time to turn their performance around, yet they failed to do so.
It is both unfortunate and perplexing that the government’s decision to downsize these public sector entities was presented as a response to external pressures rather than as an overdue and much-needed reform. By framing the decision as an IMF-driven obligation, the government missed an opportunity to take ownership of a crucial step toward addressing long-standing inefficiencies and wastefulness within public sector institutions. Instead of highlighting this move as a demonstration of Pakistan’s commitment to fiscal discipline and accountability, the government appeared hesitant to take credit for it. This lack of pride in enacting a critical reform suggests not only a reluctance to tackle wasteful expenditures but also a deeper failure to address the root causes of inefficiency within the state apparatus.
Moreover, the finance minister’s reluctance to fully explain other important aspects of the country’s fiscal policies during the same press conference raised further concerns. For instance, when pressed about the recent salary increases for judges and certain categories of bureaucrats, the finance minister deflected the question. There was also no clear answer when asked whether ‘favored’ ministries and departments, which have long enjoyed preferential treatment, would face cuts. This evasiveness raises questions about whether the government is truly committed to reducing inefficiencies and cutting waste at all levels or if some institutions and individuals remain untouchable due to entrenched political or bureaucratic interests.
The finance minister, a technocrat appointed to manage Pakistan’s fiscal challenges, may at times feel an obligation to deflect blame from the elected government. However, this tendency to place the blame elsewhere may be preventing him from making the hard decisions that are necessary for the country’s future. The truth is that reforms such as rightsizing the government, cutting bureaucratic waste, and holding public servants accountable should be embraced by the government, not presented as a reluctant concession to external demands. The fact that the finance minister failed to take full responsibility for these actions sends a worrying message about the government’s reluctance to confront entrenched inefficiencies and a lack of accountability within its own ranks.
Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
The Pakistani government’s reluctance to fully embrace necessary reforms also points to a broader issue: the failure to prioritize long-term, sustainable change over short-term political expediency. While the IMF and other international bodies can certainly play a role in shaping the policy environment, the responsibility for enacting meaningful reforms lies squarely with the government. By constantly framing domestic decisions as a response to external pressure, officials undermine the credibility of these actions and further erode public trust. A government that is constantly deflecting blame to foreign creditors risks sending the message that it is not willing to take ownership of the decisions that directly affect its citizens.
To restore public confidence, the government must shift its approach. Instead of focusing on external obligations, it should take the lead in making tough decisions that reflect a genuine commitment to reform. The decision to rightsize the government should have been framed as a forward-looking and necessary measure to address the country’s mounting fiscal pressures. By taking ownership of such decisions, the government would not only earn the respect of its citizens but also send a strong signal to the international community that it is capable of making difficult but necessary choices.
Moreover, addressing inefficiency within the public sector should not be limited to just reducing the size of government departments. The government must also commit to improving the overall quality and effectiveness of public services. This includes holding public servants accountable for their actions, ensuring that public funds are being used efficiently, and implementing merit-based recruitment and promotion systems. If Pakistan is to make meaningful progress, it must not only downsize inefficient institutions but also ensure that those that remain are functioning effectively and transparently.
In conclusion, Pakistan’s government must take responsibility for the important decisions it makes, rather than shifting the blame to foreign creditors. The decision to rightsize the government, while framed as a response to external pressure, should be seen as a positive step toward reducing waste and improving efficiency. However, this decision must be part of a broader commitment to reform, one that focuses on accountability, transparency, and long-term economic stability. If the government is serious about addressing its fiscal challenges and improving the lives of its citizens, it must take ownership of its decisions and make the tough choices necessary to secure a better future for Pakistan.
