Comparative Analysis of Monetary Policies of Pti and Pmln

Comparative Analysis of Monetary Policies of PTI and PML-N

With the upcoming general elections, every political party in Pakistan is gearing up to enter the political arena. According to predictions and popular opinions, the primary contenders for forming the next government are PTI and PML-N. Imran Khan, PTI's leader, plans to leverage his clean image and the party's remarkable performance in KPK to outmaneuver his rival, Mian Nawaz Sharif, who is left with little to do but resort to a series of falsehoods and the infamous cry of the 21st century: 'Mujhay Kiyun Nikala?' (Why was I removed?).

Fundamental Differences

The difference between PTI and PML-N is visible to the naked eye. PTI is the result of an individual's relentless efforts over 22 years, while PML-N is merely a coalition of diverse corrupted forces nurtured in a military nursery. This dichotomy in the political landscape is further highlighted by comparing the two regions governed by these political rivals.

In my opinion, an objective analysis of the performance of KPK and Punjab, based on the six 'Good Governance Indicators,' is essential to burst the bubble of deception that PML-N has been inflating for the past three decades. The fundamentals of good governance include:

• Voice and Accountability
• Political Stability and Absence of Violence
• Government Effectiveness
• Administrative Quality
• Rule of Law
• Control of Corruption

Strengthening Institutions

These indicators rely on one crucial aspect, which is the empowerment of institutions. PTI takes a clear lead in this area. Imran Khan has consistently focused on depoliticizing institutions to allow them to function at their fullest capacity. The results are evident in the police, education, and health sectors in KPK.

Walking through any street in KPK and asking people will give you the answer. Similarly, walking through any street in Punjab will yield a similar response. It's important to note that this is 30 years of intermittent rule versus four years of a nascent government. While Punjab struggles to combat the ever-increasing evils of nepotism, intervention, politicization, and corruption, the government of KPK has undoubtedly set an example for its old neighbor that governments don't operate in advertisements; they work on the ground. Concerning 'Voice and Accountability' and 'Control of Corruption,' with the enactment of bills like 'Conflict of Interest' and 'Right to Information,' the KPK government is significantly taking measures to curb corruption and promote transparency.

Challenges in Punjab

On the other hand, in Punjab, a single individual holding the seat of CM is often seen pandering to his whims and prefers to execute things with a mere gesture of his finger. The thickly populated and electorally significant region of Pakistan is in the hands of political actors who resurface every few years. To put an end to this, PML-N's time is over.

Anyone within PML-N or their supporters, who despite the unsavory precedents of the Sharifs, continue to foolishly follow rhetoric against the state of Pakistan and believe that the corpse of Sharif's dead political career can be revived, should realize that it is merely a dangerous thought. This idea will be further dispelled with the enactment of the 'Unexplained Wealth Order' in the UK, which has triggered investigations against five properties allegedly purchased with reserved or stolen wealth.

Conclusion

The natural course is playing out, and the longest dominant political supremacy of PML-N is reaching its sustained end. PTI is the talk of the town. The next elections will see the rise of Imran Khan to power, INSHAHALLAH, and if anyone still has doubts about it, then please grab some popcorn and secure yourself a front-row pass to witness history as it unfolds.

PTI has successfully completed one year of governance. As promised in the election, Prime Minister Imran Khan has launched a crackdown against corrupt leaders. The incumbent government has established shelter homes for the homeless. Pakistan has successfully raised the issue of Kashmir at the global level.

While addressing the World Economic Forum at Davos in January, Prime Minister Imran Khan claimed that the year 2020 would be one of economic growth for Pakistan. The World Bank has also recognized Pakistan as one of the top 10 'most improved' countries in the Ease of Doing Business Index.

PML-N's Economic Policies

PML-N's Sharif campaigned on a conservative platform and, after taking office, announced his economic policy under the National Economic Reconstruction Program (NERP). This program introduced a high level of Western-style capitalist economics. Unemployment had constrained Pakistan's economic growth, and Sharif believed that only privatization could solve this issue. Sharif introduced an economy based on privatization and economic liberalization, notably for banks and industries.

The privatization program replaced the nationalization by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the PPP in the 1970s. This helped the economy, but a lack of competition in bidding allowed the rise of business oligarchs and further widened the wealth gap, contributing to political instability. The PPP argued that the nationalization policy was given constitutional status by parliament and that privatization policies were illegal and had occurred without parliamentary approval.

Sharif initiated several large-scale projects to revive the economy, such as the Ghazi-Barotha Hydropower Project. However, unemployment remained a challenge. In an attempt to counter this, Sharif imported thousands of privatized Yellow-taxi cabs for young Pakistanis, but few of the loans were repaid, and Sharif had to cover them through his steel industry. Sharif's actions were not evenly distributed, focusing on Punjab and Kashmir Provinces, the base of his support, with lesser efforts in Khyber and Baluchistan provinces, and no benefits from industrialization in Sindh Province. Opponents accused Sharif of using political influence to build factories for himself and his business, for expanding the Armed Forces' secretive industrial complex, and for bribing generals.

Sharif made the nuclear weapons and energy program one of his top priorities. He expanded the nuclear energy program and pursued a nuclear program while following a policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity. This resulted in a nuclear crisis with the United States, which tightened its embargo on Pakistan in December 1990 and reportedly offered significant financial aid to end the country's uranium enrichment program. Responding to the US embargo, Sharif claimed that Pakistan had no nuclear bomb and would sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if India did as well. The embargo blocked plans for a French-built nuclear power plant, so Sharif's advisors heavily lobbied the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which allowed China to establish the CHASNUPP-I nuclear power plant and upgrade KANUPP-I.

Sharif suffered a significant loss of political support from the cooperatives societies scandal. In Punjab and Kashmir, around 700,000 people lost their savings, and it was found that billions of rupees had been granted to the Ittefaq Group of Industries, Sharif's steel plant. Although the loans were quickly repaid, Sharif's reputation was severely tarnished.

On 18 April, ahead of the 1993 Parliamentary election, Khan used his reserve powers to dissolve the National Assembly, and with the support of the military, appointed Mir Balakh Sher as interim prime minister. Sharif refused to accept this act and challenged it in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. On 26 May, the Supreme Court ruled 10–1 that the presidential order was illegal, that the president could dissolve the assembly only if a constitutional breakdown had occurred, and that the government's incompetence or corruption was irrelevant.

In July 1993, under pressure from the military, Sharif resigned under an agreement that equally disqualified President Khan from power. Under the supervision of the Pakistan Armed Forces, an interim and transitional government was formed, and a new parliamentary election was held three months later.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, under Sharif and King Fahd, had enjoyed extremely close business and cultural relations, sometimes described as a special relationship. Fahd had expressed concern that the death penalty would provoke severe ethnic violence in Pakistan, as had occurred in the 1980s after the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Under an agreement facilitated by Saudi Arabia, Sharif was placed in a state of deportation for the next 10 years and agreed not to participate in politics in Pakistan for 21 years. He also relinquished property worth US$8.3 million (£5.7 million) and paid a fine of US$500,000. Musharraf wrote in his memoirs that, without Fahd's intervention, Sharif would have been executed.

References:

• Khan, I. (2020). Address to the World Economic Forum. Davos.
• World Bank. (2020). Ease of Doing Business Index.
• Musharraf, P. (2006). In the Line of Fire: A Memoir.