It was definitely heartening to see Pakistan at the 18th slot in Jim O’Neill’s projected country rankings on the basis of GDP in 2050, and while the government’s resolve to achieve that target by 2025 is all the more commendable, a certain amount of scepticism is but natural, especially considering the last disoriented decade. Admittedly, the incumbents were then not at the helm but, for whatever causes, weak institutions or inherent shortcomings of a democratic system, their role in the opposition might not be considered decisive. On the other hand, if they can repeatedly duplicate the magical feat of getting billion dollar gifts from Pakistan’s friend, 2025 might even be a conservative target. Until and unless that comes to pass, achieving 18th is easier said than done. Reverting to Mr Neil, after BRIC, he coined another grouping acronym N-11 in 2011, which, by the way, also included Pakistan, and his most recent endeavour published by BBC, which included the chart referred to above, is ‘MINT’ countries: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. The write up does not revolve around Pakistan. More worryingly, he projects India as the third largest economy in 2050, with a GDP almost eight times that of Pakistan. So, putting number 18 aside, imagine the hegemony the next door neighbour, in theory at least, will enjoy in 2050, if these predictions indeed materialise. Nonetheless, while size of population and demography are key criteria, Mr O’Neill does point out that while his groups have the potential for greatness, such potential can only be galvanised by farsighted policies. A more detailed analysis of such conditions and precedents can be left for another time but a particular policy, that of free trade, needs special mention. Personally, the benefits of free trade have always been an enigma, especially when trade results in huge deficits. Consider that none of the countries in BRIC actually practised free trade when they were growing into economic powerhouses. In fact, quite the contrary — three countries actually practice, even till now, strict protectionism; so how can free trade be crucial to the economic success of N-11? In fact, one of the ‘MINT’ countries, Indonesia, recently came up with a trade law that reeks of protectionism. The focus of their 2014 legislation is apparently development of local production capabilities, the age-old almost forgotten strategy of focusing on import substitution or export-oriented manufacture. There is no distinction between foreign or domestic ownership, as long as the company produces goods — not services — in Indonesia. More importantly, the government will have the authority to impose trade restrictions on goods and services in the interest of domestic trade and to serve national interests, whatever those may be. Whether or not the law circumvents the World Trade Organisation’s agreement in any manner is left for the experts to contemplate but, logically, the Indonesians must have thought that eventuality through. Once again, would it hurt to simply look at what the Indonesians are doing, beyond a cursory read? Perhaps one of the reasons to ignore the above advice would be the recent drive, directly or indirectly, fuelled by certain quarters, to accord MFN status to worthy neighbours. “It is of serious interest to the country that the people at large should have no lobby and be voiceless in these matters, while great bodies of astute men seek to create an artificial opinion and to overcome the interests of the public for their private profit,” once said Woodrow Wilson. Having generally been ignorant about the current trade levels with India, a recent research update was an eye opener. Did anyone know that Pakistan’s total exports to India in fiscal year 2013 were $ 328 million against which imports from them were a colossal $ 1.6 billion, meaning a trade deficit for Pakistan of $ 1.3 billion? Apparently, when India gave Pakistan the MFN status in 1995 to 1996, the trade ratio in favour of India was 1:2, in 2010 to 2011, it was 1:6; take a guess what happens when Pakistan gives them MFN status. Reading through the report there is a distinct feeling that the assumptions about Pakistan’s advantage in textile, cement and soda ash might be overestimated. Another factor deemed necessary for growth, although Mr O’Neill himself is indifferent on this, are robust democratic institutions. Harbouring contrarian views on the subject, one is unable to comment on the steps needed to achieve this particular nirvana but perhaps the suggestions of The Economist can provide a credible path; reference their recent essay on democracy, which are summarised below. Less emphasis on elections and more on individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise, and, before jumping to conclusions, electronic media alone is not freedom! Reduce the number of promises that the government can make, i.e. limited government. The finding was that relentless expansion of government is reducing liberty and handing ever more power to private interests. A transparent and updated political system, which can counter nepotism in appointments, ensure that party financing is made public and payments to parliamentarians in any form are within limits and disclosed. And perhaps they might also pay taxes above a designated amount to be eligible for public office. Setting up a non-partisan commission to propose long-term reforms. “Think long” committee to counteract the short term tendencies of ballot initiatives. Lack of long-term planning is the reason why the country faces excessive load shedding. Upward delegation of authority to technocrats adequately balanced by delegation downwards, handing power to ordinary people. Something similar to the local bodies in Pakistan. While the recommendations appear broadly reasonable, it is not clear which of the above eliminates the practise of auctioning democracy to the highest bidder. Nonetheless, if there is serious belief and willingness to ensure that democracy survives and evolves in Pakistan, perhaps somebody should take these suggestions seriously. Prior to concluding, I wonder if anyone noticed that one of the key criteria for the N-11 was the size of the population; does that mean that population planning is a failed strategy? The road ahead is definitely bumpy; one’s only option is to learn from own experiences, which is a long and tedious process with zero margin for error. A more viable option is to be aware of other people’s experiences and, after informed decisions, pursue a path that leads to strong political foundations and the 18th ranking by GDP in the shortest possible time. Easier said than done! The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad and can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com