My comment was more in the context of establishment stability. My thesis (so to speak) was, be it authoritarian or democratic, if the economic base is satisfying enough of the population, the public resistance to the establishment generally tapers off.
I highlighted Bangladesh because (at least based on the conversations I had with people living there) the public seems to value perceived economic benefit over the Hasina government's authoritarian bent. Admittedly, it's an anecdotal observation, but I genuinely do believe Bangladesh is a place where high public discontent can displace the top no matter how strong or brutal the top is.
The issue with Pakistan is that no party or group made fundamental changes to the economy since Bhutto Sr. and Musharraf. In both cases, they benefitted certain groups but left many in the dust. There hasn't been a broad economic uplift akin to Bangladesh IMHO. I don't know if PTI will do it, but if they do, the opposition will lose energy. If that happens, then IMO, the PTI will re-engineer Pakistan's political environment to cement itself at the PPP and PML's expense. I'd say the PPP is a more attractive target as displacing it unlocks Karachi and, if leveraged right, could open a wellspring of power and influence for PTI and its backers.
But it's really an issue of perception. If the right people perceive things are going their way, then they'll support whoever is leading them to that direction. That's what will give PTI stronger roots in the population and, in turn, enable it to displace other parties. Now whether those perceived economic uplifts or benefits reflect true economic prosperity or not is a different story. PTI can 'finesse' this too, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do as, ultimately, they're another Pakistani party that was let into the power corridor.
Bro I understand what you mean, but how will there be establishment stability if there is constant "veto" above elected govt layer?
Authoritarian vs liberal (in that elected realm) has not much to do with that in the end....as essentially there are higher power layers that are totally unaccountable to almost anything.
This is why comparison with Bangladesh or say even PRC (both cases the military are firmly underneath another layer of power) is ultimately meaningless as there has not been sustained resolution and clarity in Pakistan power matrix.
This is the issue that is simply not confronted by enough Pakistanis (that have time and buffer to do so in discourse and research).
It is what the SBP runs into time and time again when (new/fresh elements of) it tries to address root components of persistent stagnation in such things as capital account and the larger bedrock of savings/capital formation.
Current account deficit is merely a symptom/effect of these two things. Addressing it in one year will not bring much respite past that (as Pakistan has seen multiple times already).
Just take a look at gross domestic savings for example between Pakistan and Bangladesh:
Bangladesh problems/challenges (and I can list many, quite serious persistent dissonant ones too, well past the forex overstating, GDP inflation and bad credit rating, lack of larger technocratic+corporate verticals) are of different paradigm now because they have managed to enter "phase 2" and "phase 3" of the argument by growing their savings ( THE core part of the onion) and thus capital formation (the basic fulcrum for any further investment levers).
BD phase 1 has resolved itself largely:
- Military under control of higher power structures
- Military to begin with has low fiscal footprint/influence
- 0% tariff access to large wealthy markets for particular industry (RMG) that BD has focused on expanding
To be able to have grown from 10 billion to 80 billion now in domestic savings....and on its way soon to reach clear triple digit bn figure here soon.
Whereas you will find Pakistan is stuck at the 20 billion dollar level (at one point it was enough to be double that of BD in early 2000s) to this day.
It is simply not useful for Pakistan to compare itself on non-core matters (ahead, same or behind) because the root core cause (phase 1 stuff) is simply stuck with the savings number (a basic trust dividend from larger population) clearly illustrating it.
This is fuel in the tank stuff....before we can talk about the car and roads it on....and matters of expanse and nuance past it.
But the walk around eggshells manner this involves when you bring up (core stuff) with those that feel they must carry water for the unaccountable powers that be...for all kinds of reasons/inertias known to them.....is the psyche that seems to have set in quite deeply in areas of "debate".
It is why Pakistan will be stuck in this 20 billion saving zone this decade too. If you cannot question "why" (even the SBP cannot)...it simply cannot be addressed.
If it cannot be addressed, everything under the sun except that stuff will be talked about instead....but meaning very little of significance.
This explains the larger conundrum and the microcosms that harness and transmit the same.