Performance targets

During a meeting of the National Assembly's Standing Committee on Finance the Finance Secretary reportedly informed the participants that the government has decided to set 'performance targets' for the ministries of Water and Power and Commerce, and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
These ministries and the FBR were selected because of their impact on the economic and social life of the ordinary. Therefore, the Federal Budget for 2012-13, would focus on "consolidating macroeconomic stability, accelerating growth and employment, and continued efforts on taming inflation."
Parliamentarians were also informed that the restructuring of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) would be accelerated by the Public Sector Development Programme, and the energy sector and infrastructure development would have high priority. Public-Private partnerships would be supported to improve PSEs performance. While the expression of these intentions deserves appreciation, was it something that should have been delayed for four years after the incumbent regime took control? Shouldn't the regime have done so on day-1 of its present term that it insists on completing, irrespective of what it did during the past four years?
Is it because the regime is a late riser or because it wants to dupe the nation into believing that, if elected for a second term, it will be careful about its conduct? If that's what the regime believes, it considers the nation incapable of seeing through its jugglery. Some self-deception, isn't it?
It also reflects on the collective genius of the parliamentarians, because demand for setting performance targets for the federal and provincial ministries, quarterly review of that performance, and tough corrective measures, was never explicitly made, which is why we stand where we do now.
Just one outcome of this attitude towards functioning of the state offices is the fact that, against the Rs 2.338 trillion target of tax collection for 2011-12, according to its own data, by end-April the government had collected only Rs 1.416 trillion - a shortfall of Rs 0.922 trillion that defies collection in the next two months.
But that's no surprise. The yearly promises of the Ministry of Water and Power about zeroing the gap between power generation and consumption were never met. Despite that performance, the minister who made these promises (removed without accountability) was again made a federal minister. Some punishment isn't it?
How many parliamentarians protested over this or over the reasons why estimates of GDP growth in 2011-12 kept 'oscillating' between 3.2 percent and 4 percent, courtesy the varied statistical estimation expertise residing in the Ministry of Finance, Planning Commission and the Federal Bureau of Statistics.
Did parliamentarians question the bases for the 2012-13 growth targets set by the APCC? For instance, how would the large-scale manufacturing sector grow by 4 percent, when in 2011-12, it is expected to grow by 1.8 percent? Will the flaw decelerating its growth - power supply - be rectified in 2012-13? If so how?
The targets currently being discussed don't appear realistic and, surely, those setting them know this reality. This makes the criticism of the targets being merely a collection of deceptive numbers sound credible, which reflects not just on politicians but on the bureaucracy as well.
In 1987, when the British government was under fire for the economic chaos it had caused, an article in The Guardian said what makes un-contestable sense. It said "governments come and governments go; what provides continuity to the state is the professionalism and integrity of its bureaucracy."
A cherished tradition of the bureaucracy was that every bureaucrat writing to a citizen would end his/her letter by calling himself/herself "your most obedient servant". That is now the story of a by-gone era. Bureaucrats no longer consider themselves the servants of the people.
The problem that Pakistan continues to suffer from since the late 1960s, is the fact that bureaucrats, who shouldn't consider themselves the servants of the in-power regimes, gradually compromised on this principle, and no longer consider themselves the 'servants' of the people.
Bureaucrats no longer tell the politicians what is right and fair, and what isn't. Rarely does one hear about an upright bureaucrat resigning from his/her office because he/she differed with the regime on principles. The corrupt regime and subservient bureaucracy duo can prove lethal.
That's why, most of the economic statistics now being discussed in the government forums seem like 'made to order' stuff for an election year, although refusal to accept ground realities can only lead to committing even bigger blunders, instead of correcting what is wrong.
This is the frightening aspect of this muddle, because this adamantly blind approach will push the economy into an ever-deeper pit. We are not addressing the key issues, even a partial resolution of which could help achieve 70 to 80 percent of the glossy targets being set for the various sectors.
By now, Pakistan's business and industry have learnt to live with all the other challenges this country faces, courtesy its decade-long involvement in the almost never-ending Afghan civil war, but the two issues crippling them are internal security and power supply shortfalls.
The shocking aspect of the preparatory work for the budget is that the Ministry of Interior hasn't announced a strategy to contain lawlessness on the streets that frequently freezes economic activity. This neglect is eating away the very roots of investor confidence without which no growth target can be met.
The operation in Lyari was hardly the sort of moves to contain lawlessness. It only added to the doubts people have about the coalition regime netting the criminal elements within its ranks. Ask any shopkeeper, let alone big businesses and factory-owners, and they will agree with this view.
As for minimising the power shortfall, the regime seems completely at a loss to plug it reflecting its callousness and professional bankruptcy; remarks by Yusuf Raza Gilani that one-third of the Pakistanis, who are sick of the country's current state of affairs, should leave Pakistan prove just that.
In fact, the power sector should have been the regime's priority No 1 after it took control. Had that been the case, things would have been much better, the regime not as unpopular as it is, and businessmen would have had more money to 'please' the in-power politicians.
If the government shuns its wasteful resource use (eg expenses of the presidency and the PM house) and impartially focuses on containing lawlessness and increasing power supply, the economy could revive. Business closures could only add to the jobless, and push frustration-driven lawlessness to a country-braking level.