Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, while accepting the right of the opposition to criticise the government's budgetary proposals, has pointed out that they still failed to offer any concrete suggestions for improvement. Same holds true of the members on the Treasury benches.
There is very little understanding among the members of Parliament of the economic philosophy of the Budget, the demand and resource gap in an underdeveloped country, and how to prioritise resources utilisation and get the best return for the rupee spent.
One need not doubt the sincere desire of the parliamentarians to work for improvement of the lot of the underprivileged and the poor. They do want job creation, greater availability of health and education facilities, better law and order, consistent and efficiently functioning utilities, improved civic amenities, and the wish list goes on and on. However, their criticism is directed, most of the time, at government expenditure.
While lamenting the big size of current expenditure, in the same breath they want raise in the salaries for themselves and the civil servants.
They are quite supportive of expenditure on defence so long as they are on the treasury side. As soon as they have to shift to the opposition benches, their view of defence budget also changes. Most of the parliamentarians leave the bundles of documents circulated on the budget day in the House and do not bother to read them.
A handful of MNAs and Senators who have, in the past, served in economic ministries speak with authority on the subject. Senator Sartaj Aziz and Senator Ishaq Dar of PML(N); Senator Khursheed Ahmad (MMA) and Naveed Qamar MNA (PPP) are usually seen locking horns with Treasury members, in Parliament as well as on television channels. But usually the level of discussion, both inside and outside the Assembly halls, is rather pedestrian.
Parliamentary committees in other countries practising democracy hold hearings on budgetary proposals months before the budget presentation. And, the discussion after the presentation of the Finance Bill is usually spread over two to three months.
Under Martial Law regimes, budgets were presented by the Finance Minister on Radio and TV and enforced as ordinances without any discussion. Sometimes the hue and cry from various tax paying sectors did force the government of the day to withdraw or amend certain proposals. But even under democratic dispensation, the executive generally keeps the taxation proposals and collection methodology close to their chests.
Under the 1973 constitution, agricultural income as well as taxation on properties and sales tax on services fall in the domain of provincial authorities; what has been the result? Industry which accounts for 25 percent of the gross domestic product bears 67 percent of the tax burden. Agriculture making 23 percent contribution to GDP pays less than 5 percent of the revenue, and services which constitute 67 percent of GDP have only 18 percent.
With revenue receipts stagnating at nine percent of GDP, the four provinces have become totally dependent on the centre for collection of taxes and funding of badly needed infrastructure projects.
Unlike excise duty and customs duty, sales tax is collected on behalf of the provinces by the Centre. Having no power under the constitution to impose sales tax on services and seeking to expand the tax base, Islamabad chose to give a fresh nomenclature to Sales Tax on Services calling it Federal Excise.
Why do we not call a spade a spade? Instead of taking a circuitous route of calling GST on services as Federal Excise, let us forge a consensus about raising the revenue to meet the requirements of the economy. The concept of a Federation has to be put into practice in letter and spirit. Since the fall of Dhaka, the political set-up reflects a unitary system.
Four Prime Ministers hailing from minority provinces failed to give provincial autonomy despite promises in the party's election manifestos. Z.A. Bhutto; Mohammad Khan Junejo; Benazir Bhutto; as well as Zafarullah Jamali could not devolve the power from Islamabad to the provinces to which it belonged. Nawaz Sharif, hailing from Punjab, had a different agenda.
Both General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf were given extra-ordinary powers by the Supreme Court to amend the constitution. They amended the constitution but did not touch the taxation system in vogue. They preferred not to make the taxation system equitable by enabling the provinces to share the burden by all irrespective of the source of income.
Why did the two powerful generals whose help to contestants was crucial in getting elected to Parliament failed to do so? Obviously all their actions had to be ratified by the elected House having a huge agricultural lobby. After all, a thousand rupees in hand buys the same amount of goods and services for every one: the agriculturist, the industrialist, salaried persons or a service provider.
Comments
Comments are closed.