Sometime before the advent of federal budget 2004-05, the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) asked the public to provide proposals directly to the department concerned.
Several other government organizations that are known to have a say in the preparation of the budget, did the same.
The step marked a clear shift of the State towards the right direction. The willingness to incorporate public view on public affairs is a welcome sigh, even though the scope of it is limited to the sphere of economic governance for the time being.
But there are signs of flexibility. Quite a few recent moves by the government indicate that the habit of "glasnost" (openness) has begun to catch on. These moves, nonetheless generally are subtle and not very obvious.
In all of the country's past, a closed club of 'babus,' civil servants, technocrats and donors' appointees have, continued to handle the affairs of economic management. They used to enjoy complete monopoly over a vast pool of relevant information.
Those experts wrote policy papers and documents in the kind of language that even economists found difficult to comprehend. It is little wonder if those decisions coming out of the airconditioned rooms of arm-chair bureaucrats, who knew little whether people were eating cakes or finding it difficult to earn their daily bread, did not touch on the problems of ordinary people. Whatever information was disseminated, anyway, was not accessible to the masses.
The economy was for better part of our history auto driven. External and natural factors determined the direction and momentum more than a conscious policy intervention leading to better utilisation of country's potential providing the needed thrust towards consistent long term sustainable development.
No wonder the star economists in the ministry of finance were generally clueless and unable to explain with confidence all of the 'ifs', 'buts', whys' and how's' of Pakistan's economic phenomenon.
For example, the economic managers are yet to provide a satisfactory explanation on what kept the economy afloat or rather did not let it crash after Pakistan opted to match wits with the neighbour on nuclear tests? Or why despite high liquidity situation nearly all financial assets and key areas of investment, such as real estate, stocks, gold and dollar did not take a jump? Or how much profit margin expectation is good enough to mitigate political risk in Pakistan and induce private sector to chanalise their funds towards more meaningful long-term investment projects in the country?
May be it is this mass ignorance that is a cause of embarrassment, when people try to seek out more information through unconventional means. It could also be to keep up with the changing world that higher-ups are adopting more liberal approach in the dissemination of information.
In the last few years most ministries, departments, divisions, autonomous bodies and regulatory authorities have launched their own web sites. These might not be perfect but quantity and quality of information available was unimaginable even a few years back. Key of economic data and policy papers are available for anyone who cares to know.
A social activist who asked not to be named, attributed the change to information explosion and greater reach of international civil society through resourceful non-government organizations (NGOs) to almost all sectors of society. The trend has forced the government to improve on its understanding so as to be able to improve its performance.
Whatever might be the reasons, the fact remains that the government has become inclined to loosen its grip on information pool. The openness to hear and incorporate public view is the first step in betterment of the lot of the average citizen.
The ongoing exercise by the government, that has been reported extensively in the press, to evolve a medium to long-term economic strategy has also been in a way different from the way the Planning Commission functioned earlier.
How far the output would be different will depend on more than one factor. It, however, is bound to be better than mere imitation of donors' devised formulas if evolved indigenously.
When contacted the President of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Mr Riaz Tata, agreed that government was now more approachable. "Dialogue and open debate most certainly helps in evolving a more balanced view", he remarked.
"If people are reluctant to commit their capital for long-term investment in general in the country there must be reasons for that. By taking people into confidence in policy making decisions, the government may finally succeed in directing resources in private hands towards economic activity where interests of society merge with those of private investors", he asserted.
From information gathered on the response from different section of civil society towards such moves, it is safe to conclude that it could take a while before ordinary people understand the value and utility of participation.
Propertied classes and interest groups in the society directly and through hired lobbyists pursue their interests very diligently. Ordinary person on the street is forever saddled with the nagging worry of trying to match his earnings with his responsibility to provide for his family.
Years of neglect have alienated him and in many cases he suffers from low self-esteem. He does not bother to think beyond his immediate wants and do not consider himself competent to put forward intelligent solutions where public problems are concerned.
For the dialogue process to become more meaningful, it would be equally important to break the cycle of social exclusion for people at the lowest rung. Measures to this end, if opted for, would restore credibility of the government and lead towards participatory development path, during which, as OECD explains, "agenda is jointly set, and local views and indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected".
