Should economic ministers be technocrats?

LAHORE: Appointing economic experts from outside parliament can introduce valuable technical knowledge, but it may lack democratic legitimacy. Conversely, appointing ministers from within parliament ensures accountability to the public but can result in less technical proficiency in managing the economy.

Political parties in Pakistan often lack economic experts, yet the law mandates that ministers must be appointed from within parliament. This absence of financial expertise in the political landscape is a key factor behind poor economic planning. Politicians with little or no economic background, once in power, are often misled by businessmen who supported their election campaigns.

Historically, Pakistan’s economy is said to have performed better during military dictatorships. A major reason for this was the appointment of finance ministers with strong economic expertise. Ayub Khan, for instance, appointed Mohammad Shoaib, an economic expert, as finance minister, and his tenure was marked by effective performance.

Under Ziaul Haq, globally renowned economist Dr Mahbubul Haq headed the finance ministry. Similarly, Shaukat Aziz led the finance ministry during the first three years of Pervaiz Musharraf’s rule. Although Aziz performed well, his tenure as prime minister saw him make political compromises that undid much of the progress made.

In democratic governments, Ishaq Dar’s performance was mixed. The PTI-led government appointed Dr Hafeez Sheikh, an unelected technocrat, as finance minister, but he failed to get elected to the Senate within six months and had to resign. His successor rolled back key reforms, leading to the suspension of the IMF programme and destabilization of the economy. The current finance minister, though not a politician, secured a Senate seat and is performing well, resisting political pressures thus far.

Non-elected heads of finance bring technical expertise that politicians often lack, enabling them to focus on long-term economic policies without being swayed by short-term political pressures. In times of economic crisis, technocrats are sometimes seen as more capable of managing the economy, as seen in Italy and Greece.

However, technocrats are not directly accountable to voters, which can create tensions in democratic systems where public accountability is crucial. They may lack the political skills needed to navigate complex political environments or build consensus in parliament. A heavy focus on technical solutions without considering the social and political implications can also be problematic.

Many countries appoint economic experts who are not members of parliament to head key ministries. In the US, cabinet secretaries, including the secretary of the treasury, are typically chosen from outside the legislature and often have expertise in economics, finance or business. In the UK, although most ministers are MPs, there have been exceptions where non-MPs, often appointed to the House of Lords, have served as ministers. For example, Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, was considered for such a role. In France, many finance ministers, like Bruno Le Maire, have strong bureaucratic backgrounds and are appointed for their expertise, even when they are not career politicians.

India’s constitution mandates that a minister must be an MP or secure a parliamentary seat within six months, and one of its most successful finance ministers, Manmohan Singh, was a technocrat. Similarly, ministers in Bangladesh must secure a parliamentary seat within six months of their appointment. However, politicians often succumb to economically unsustainable policies to appease the public.