A NUMBER of writers have been stating that this government has politicised the economy extensively, and that politics has taken precedence over economics resulting in great damage to Pakistan’s economy. Their argument is based on a number of decisions which the government has taken, and many that it should have taken, but were held back on account of too much politics.

They need to be reminded, that everything, and not just the economy, is political. Gender relations, property ownership, capital accumulation, industrial policy, fiscal policy, most of all taxation, and even control over the environment, are all in the realm of politics. It would be almost impossible to find an economic, social or public act outside of politics. Hence, to state that this government is politicising the economy is to state but the obvious and is utterly naive, and accounts for unwarranted and unnecessary criticism, since every public act is political.

Furthermore, what is important to emphasise is that many of these writers are those who worked for the previous regime of Gen Musharraf in some capacity or the other, as diplomats or advisers, and they seem to have forgotten just how ‘political’ Gen Musharraf’s unelected and illegitimate government was. These advisers and other actors in the Musharraf government were as political, if not more, as the functionaries of the present government. Moreover, what is worse, is their collective amnesia about exactly what sort of politics they played, as they prefer to forget their own very active political role in the previous government.

It is quite preposterous that those who were part of the Musharraf regime are willing to discuss policy of that time, in a manner far removed from themselves, as if they had nothing to do with those policies. They discuss issues in an abstract manner, not only as if they were one of the better technocrats of that regime, but without reflection, self-criticism or responsibility nor a mea culpa in their analysis. This is complete hypocrisy and dishonesty, to say the least, and sadly, op-ed spaces allow many such former policymakers to reinvent themselves absolved of decisions of the past.

Just as these advisers and technocrats played politics under Musharraf, so too do those who represent this government. The important difference is, of course, that those who are in government today, whether as directly elected representatives or as unelected technocrats, are at least real political entities and accountable to the electorate and justified in making political decisions. Elections, even those in Pakistan, are political events and offer the electorate different political choices. The differences in political views may not be very extensive, but, nevertheless, choices do exist and are made. This is obviously the core idea of elections and of making preferred choices.

This government is an elected political government and it needs to make decisions with regard to the economy and every other public realm, based on its own political preferences and understanding of why it was voted in to do exactly that. These choices may not be the best ones which could be made and a different group of decision-makers may have made better choices, but their choices too would have been based on political understanding and thinking. There is no escape from politics, only the form and manifestation of that politics varies.

It is a completely different matter to criticise the government for making the wrong choices or for supporting or protecting certain vested interests. Similarly, it is quite justified to attack the government for its inefficiency and lack of vision, and for this being poor politics.

For instance, the reluctance of this government to raise taxes based on wealth and income and to prefer indirect taxes is clearly a political decision, where it protects the very rich and taxes the poor, but a rather short-sighted political decision. However, the party in government weighs its political options and makes choices on the basis of those whom it either wants to represent or benefit. The way the Raymond Davis case is evolving suggests similar political thinking.

This government has made numerous poor political choices and has wavered a great deal from its electoral promises. This too is not uncommon as many political parties take decisions which deviate from their earlier promises. Moreover, when conditions change, it might even be prudent to reinvent oneself and make decisions which better reflect changing realities. The recent initiative by the main opposition party to engage with the government over political issues which affect all political parties and residents of Pakistan, is one such example which shows just how important prudent politics can be.

Despite the numerous weaknesses and flaws which exist in government policies and in the suggestions of the opposition, one cannot but marvel at the way both continue to engage with each other to further a political programme which is fundamentally different from the flawed political agenda of the Musharraf regime.

Those former Musharraf supporters who criticise this government for supposedly politicising the economy and everything else, must at least take cognisance of this fundamental difference. It is far better to encourage political actors to discuss political issues and to take political decisions than it is for supposedly apolitical unelected organisations and institutions to play the dirtiest games of politicising everything.

The writer is a political economist.