Capital suggestion: Beyond politics

Having been geographically away from Pakistan for some time provided me with a unique opportunity to observe the thematic focus of global discussions. I’m struck by the international conversation’s emphasis on pressing issues like economic trends, artificial intelligence’s potential impact, climate change solutions and the rapid pace of technological innovation. In stark contrast, upon my return to Pakistan, the focus is overwhelmingly dominated by a single topic: politics, politics, and more politics.

China has the ‘Party-State System’. The ‘party’ is the Communist Party of China (CCP) and the ‘state’ comprises the administration, parliament and the judiciary. The ‘party’ sets the overall policy direction. The ‘state’, including the administration, parliament and judiciary, implements these policies. The judiciary does not have the power to interpret. China’s ‘Party-State System’ has brought down the number of people living in extreme poverty from 883 million in 1981 to just six million in 2015 (World Bank).

Here is a partial list of countries that focused solely on economics and sidelined politics: Vietnam, South Korea, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Rwanda, Botswana, Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, Panama and Estonia. Vietnam sidelined politics and focused on trade liberalization. South Korea and Malaysia sidelined politics and focused on export-oriented industrialization. Bangladesh focused on its garment industry. Rwanda sidelined politics and focused on post-genocide economic reforms and good governance. Costa Rica focused on ecotourism. Estonia focused on IT.

Pakistan operates under the Westminster system, comprising three branches: the executive, the parliament, and the judiciary. Notably, both parliament and the judiciary are predominantly preoccupied with political matters. In contrast, the current executive branch appears to prioritize economic issues.

In all probability, this system is unlikely to deliver either effective governance or economic progress. The system has inherent imbalances and misaligned priorities. The overwhelming focus of parliament and the judiciary on political issues detracts both from their ability to address pressing economic and social challenges. Parliament’s and the judiciary's preoccupation with politics has three consequences: legislative gridlock, judicial inefficiencies, and a lack of cohesive policy implementation.

In all probability, the executive's isolated efforts to prioritize economics are insufficient without the support and collaboration of parliament and the judiciary. Consequently, the system's fragmented focus is hindering comprehensive and sustainable economic progress.

Here are the three things we need to do. One, a strategic shift in parliament and the judiciary’s focus on politics – and prioritization of economic development. Two, adopt a more integrated approach, similar to successful models seen in countries like South Korea and Estonia. Three, establish a unified policy direction with clear economic goals set by a central authority and collaboratively implemented across all three branches.

Drawing on empirical research conducted over the past five decades, a positive correlation exists between a legislature's focus on evidence-based economic policymaking and a nation's economic growth. Similarly, a judiciary focused on upholding contracts and facilitating efficient dispute resolution can attract investment and contribute to economic stability.

The writer is a columnist based in Islamabad. He tweets/posts @saleemfarrukh and can be reached at: farrukh15@hotmail.com