The Economic Reforms Protection Act 1992 is in the limelight again, thanks to the Panama leaks and, the outrage about accountability vis-à-vis offshore assets of the privileged part of Pakistan’s population. How all this happened is not that big a story but it is a well-thought out plan to plunder this poor nation. All appears to have been done in ‘good faith’. Of course, Pakistan needed economic reforms so as to make it as an integral part of the liberal world, which had recently emerged as the winner of the Cold War. Nawaz Sharif vowed to champion the cause of liberalising the economy. He had outwitted Benazir Bhutto, who had not shown that much interest in taking Pakistan ‘forward’ with the help of elements who had waged jihad in Afghanistan. Despite all his ‘good’ intentions for liberalisation of economy, Sharif also failed to bring any real reforms. He had to pay dearly for the wounds he had inflicted on the government of the ‘daughter of the East’. The chaos of 1990s, whereby Bhutto and Sharif took their turns in power, was not an encouraging factor for foreign investors, but it did help local ones to shift capital gained through ‘unfair’ means abroad. The process continued. Even the vociferous opponent of Sharif, General Parvez Musharraf did not change the process. In 2009, the then governor of the State Bank of Pakistan disclosed that nine billion dollars had been transferred abroad through illegal means. The Panama Papers have just revealed as to what scale the capital flight has taken place. Those reading into politics know well about the great divide in society. The concept of ‘opposition’ is irrelevant here if you are talking about democracy. It is not at all a contest of authority, which, of course, is legal and affords criticism. This is a race for power — raucous, cruel and crushing. The 1990s was a decade when Sharifs and Bhuttos could not reconcile. They titans clashed and ruined not only prospects of democracy but also the future of the people, and a lost decade also gave birth to a lost generation. General Musharraf, who would become president after caging the ‘Lion,’ and later sending him on exile for 10 long years, did create the political stability required for economic reforms but as far as foreign investment is concerned only few sectors — banking, energy and telecom — would deliver. The problem that came to the fore during his times was that profit investors earned were sent to home countries while the investment brought to the real estate devoured savings of middle-income groups. Neither the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) nor the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has felt the need to change the policies of Musharraf era. They have learnt a lesson from their past as they make constitutional arrangements of the sorts to take turns in the corridors of power. The ‘bonhomie’ between them has erased the concept of real and healthy opposition from the minds of the people. Pakistan entertains a kind democracy where the leading political parties just scratch each other’s backs, hence how is it possible for them to take care of people’s interests? How can people convince the ruling groups that it is criminal to make the energy sector the major source of state revenues? Who will take pains to protest over the fact that the ratio of direct taxes remains almost 80 percent of government revenues? Why do the provinces enjoying autonomy since 2010 are willing to hand over power and resources as per the NFC formula? That the opposition is not holding the government accountable has put a question mark on the whole democratic exercise: it is not delivering any good to the grassroots level. The benefits of democracy remain confined to a small section of society that has taken hold of political parties due to their privileged position in society. These are mostly the families the British Raj had reared for its own sake. They are short of farsightedness, and essentially lack national spirit. What about the state, its people and their livelihood? Can the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) deliver? Is it different from the rest? Don’t go by rhetoric but the deeds of its leader, Imran Khan. Is he or his close aides much different from Bhuttos or Sharifs? Does the strategy to throw Sharif out of power will work? The core interest of the PPP and its regional allies being strict adherence of centre to the principle of provincial autonomy, slowing down the privatisation process, retaining the exploitative taxation system and defending the quota system for jobs, PTI’s pressure techniques only help them to enhance their bargaining power against the PML-N government. Both of them draw strength from ‘reactionary’ elements, not the ones that want to change Pakistan for good. The PTI can enhance its electoral gains in upcoming general elections only by striking where the old parties have really faulted: they are not interested in devolving power to the grassroots level at all. PTI must have thrown its weight on the side of taxpayers by urging on government to enhance the size of direct taxes and netting the unregistered economy. The PTI needs to reconsider its political strategy to fully exploit its potential to gain grounds the PPP has lost in Punjab. It should understand the real dynamics that have put it on favourable position in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa already. There is a lot more for it in other parts of the country as well if it reverts to a prudent course of action. The writer is Director at the Center for Policy and Media Studies