Can Centralised Control In Pakistan Sustain Economic Growth Without Eroding Democracy?

Forced political stability in Pakistan may spur short-term economic gains but risks eroding democratic values, fueling social unrest, and undermining long-term growth without robust institutions and freedoms.

Can Centralised Control In Pakistan Sustain Economic Growth Without Eroding Democracy?

The past year in Pakistan was marked by turbulence and instability. While the political stalemate continued, the country saw some promising economic developments, with inflation and interest rates declining in 2024. The key question now is: where will these trends lead in 2025?

In a bid to drive economic progress, Pakistan's hybrid regime has centralised control, sacrificing democratic principles by effectively caging the opposition. This authoritarian approach, adopted in 2022, raises a critical question: will it deliver sustainable economic growth, or will it stifle the country's democratic development? Moreover, this path echoes failed strategies followed by past dictatorships in the country, begging the question of whether it offers a viable roadmap for the future.

Supporters of political stability imposed by force often argue that it is a necessary step, particularly in countries with weak institutions or histories of instability like Pakistan. When a country is experiencing political chaos, economic decline, or civil unrest, some believe that a strong, centralised government—whether through military rule, technocratic control, or authoritarian leadership—is essential to bring order and set the stage for development.

While such stability can lead to short-term economic progress, it also comes with significant costs. History shows that forced political stability often leads to significant social and political risks that can undermine long-term economic development. Reverting to the starting point through another failed attempt could prove counterproductive.

In many cases, centralised control leads to the erosion of democratic institutions, including the judiciary, the media, and civil society. This can create a governance system where decision-making is not transparent or accountable, which can eventually lead to corruption, inefficiency, and a lack of trust in the state. As seen in many authoritarian regimes, once the grip on power becomes entrenched, it can be difficult to reform or move towards a more inclusive and participatory political system.

Attempting to impose stability through force often suppresses dissent, leading to long-term social unrest. Countries that resort to political repression may face growing inequality, poverty, and public discontent. While this approach may spur economic growth in the short term, the benefits can be unevenly distributed, with wealth concentrated among a small elite, further fueling public discontent. The example of the Ayub dictatorship in Pakistan demonstrates this dynamic - the regime delivered economic growth but also entrenched social inequalities, ultimately contributing to its collapse.

Relying on a single leader or small elite group to enforce political stability often proves perilous. When these authoritarian regimes collapse, the country is left grappling with instability and turmoil. The downfall of dictatorships like Pinochet's Chile and Ceausescu's Romania illustrates the dangers of centralised control based on personal authority. Once these leaders were removed from power, the countries faced immense challenges in transitioning to more democratic forms of governance. Without a robust system of checks and balances, the abrupt loss of a dominant ruler can plunge a nation into political and economic upheaval.

Force-imposed stability can provide a foundation for economic progress, it often comes at the cost of human rights and political freedoms

In terms of economic progress, forced political stability might create favorable conditions in the early years of a regime (such as attracting foreign investment, implementing structural reforms, or stabilising inflation), but whether that progress is sustainable depends on several factors:

Robust, transparent, and accountable institutions are the foundation for long-term, inclusive economic progress. Countries that transition from authoritarian regimes to democratic governance, such as South Korea and Taiwan, tend to experience more sustainable economic development.

In our globalised world, countries must align with international standards governing trade, investment, and human rights. Authoritarian governments that resist these norms may find their economic growth hampered by isolation or pressure from global actors demanding greater political freedoms and reforms.

Investing in education, healthcare, and human rights is crucial for economic development. Conversely, regimes that suppress freedom of expression, civil liberties, and educational progress risk stifling innovation and the empowerment of the population - both of which are vital for long-term growth. 

As rationalist Baruch Spinoza aptly said “The object of government is not to change men from rational beings into puppets, but to enable them to develop their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled. … The true aim of government is liberty.

In conclusion, political stability imposed by force can catalyse rapid economic progress in the short term, particularly in countries with weak institutions or histories of political instability. The centralised control provided by authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes can allow for decisive action, long-term planning, and the implementation of ambitious economic policies. However, the sustainability of such growth is highly contingent on the development of strong institutions, the promotion of human capital, and the eventual integration of democratic principles.

Ultimately, while force-imposed stability can provide a foundation for economic progress, it often comes at the cost of human rights and political freedoms. The question is not just whether economic progress can be achieved, but whether it can be sustained without addressing the deeper political issues that may emerge when governance is centralised, and democratic values are compromised. Without careful management, the long-term effects may undermine both economic development and the stability itself, potentially leading to future political and economic crises.

Saad Hafiz is an analyst and commentator. He can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com.