Pakistan's emergence as a credible peace broker — from its quiet, persistent diplomacy between Washington and Tehran to the Islamabad Memorandum — is a moment of genuine pride. Pakistan is, for once, a subject of international conversation for its statesmanship rather than its crises. But a nation celebrated for brokering peace between others cannot indefinitely postpone confronting the slow-motion economic crisis within its own borders. The two are not in tension — they are, in fact, the same test of statesmanship, applied to a harder problem.

Pakistan's slow growth is more than an economic challenge—it is the country's foremost national security threat. No amount of military strength, diplomacy, or managed stability can rescue a nation that is sliding deeper into poverty while its population keeps growing. Minerals, bailouts, housing schemes, and marginal policy changes will not revive growth. The security establishment's greatest adversary is not India, Afghanistan, or terrorism, but Pakistan's own slow-motion decay. This is not about GDP; it is about the future, which increasingly appears precarious.

Shehbaz Sharif has presided over the weakest growth in six decades—2.33% annually, barely matching population growth. Five to six per cent growth is aspirational; the seven to eight per cent needed for transformation is unattainable under the current system. Pakistanis are poorer than in 2022. Millions have slipped into poverty while technocrats quibble over whether the figure is 29% or 40%, as though statistical debate can obscure decline. Pakistan does not need consensus from the forces blocking reform. It needs to break from them.

The establishment watches this slow-motion crisis with little urgency—possibly its greatest strategic miscalculation. As the chief architect and principal beneficiary of the existing order, it has the most to lose from prolonged economic decline and demographic-driven instability. Pakistan's median age is around 20, and the official NEET rate—youth aged 15–24 not in employment, education, or training—stands at 32–33 per cent nationally. A state cannot preserve strategic strength while its economic foundations erode.

There is another compelling reason to prioritise economic development: the changing character of war. The US–Iran confrontation and the brief India–Pakistan escalation in May 2025 both signal a structural shift in warfare. Military power is moving from traditional platforms to networked systems built on algorithms, autonomous platforms, and precision strikes. Pakistan's military remains largely configured for the industrial wars of the twentieth century. Adapting demands a costly overhaul of the defence ecosystem—conceivably around 2 per cent of GDP—built on technological capability and intellectual capital.

Pakistan's risk is not sudden collapse but gradual strategic erosion

Pakistan's risk is not sudden collapse but gradual strategic erosion

Economic stagnation coincides with a global AI revolution embedding itself in manufacturing, logistics, finance, and healthcare. Firms that deploy it cut costs, capture market share, and out scale competitors—from BYD's AI-optimised production lines to Amazon's automated warehouses. Countries that fall behind will steadily lose competitiveness even in traditional industries. Pakistan's risk is not sudden collapse but gradual strategic erosion: textile competitiveness fading against Vietnam's faster-moving manufacturers and India's scaled producers, export growth slowing, and dependence on external debt deepening.

Blaming one government or party misses the point. Failure is systemic. The starkest indictment is comparative. In 1990, Pakistan had higher per capita income than India and Bangladesh. By 2024, it had fallen behind both. Over that period, Pakistan's annual per capita income grew by just 1.61 per cent, compared with 4.49 per cent in India and 4.24 per cent in Bangladesh. This reflects the failure of a state designed to preserve power rather than create prosperity.

GDP per capita (PPP, constant US$)

From 2022 to 2026, real per capita growth was flat or slightly negative (–0.2%). The government has no growth strategy—only a stabilisation narrative borrowed from the IMF and presented as achievement. While it claims foreign policy successes, these were initiated and led by Field Marshal Asim Munir, as widely recognised internationally. The civilian government is a stranger in its own administration while the real decisions are made by mandarins in Islamabad and Pindi.

Watch Pakistan's prime-time economic debates. The questions that matter are almost never asked: Why has Pakistan fallen behind nearly every major Asian economy? Why do economic crises keep recurring? Why is the obsession with raising the tax-to-GDP ratio never matched by an equally serious debate about shrinking the state, cutting bureaucratic excess, and curbing waste? Reducing a structural failure of governance to a financing problem is not an oversight. It is how the system – helped by a compliant media - protects itself from scrutiny.

I recently watched one such programme, at a leading channel, in which a prominent business leader argued—whether out of self-interest or economic illiteracy—that........

© The Friday Times