By Uzma Ehtasham
Parliament has now approved the federal budget and the accompanying Finance Bill for the coming fiscal year, moving the government’s economic blueprint one step closer to implementation. Although a number of amendments were accepted during the parliamentary process, the broad direction of fiscal policy has remained largely unchanged. The opposition’s proposed revisions were rejected, reinforcing the government’s determination to pursue its chosen path of revenue collection, tax restructuring and deficit management. Yet once the parliamentary debate ends and the legislation receives presidential assent, the true test of the budget begins. Its success will not be determined by optimistic revenue projections or carefully balanced accounts, but by whether it improves the lives of millions of Pakistanis who continue to struggle with the rising cost of living.
Every government presents its budget as a roadmap towards stability and growth. Ministers speak confidently of increasing revenues, widening the tax base and strengthening the economy through structural reforms. These objectives are undoubtedly important. Pakistan’s fragile public finances require discipline, while international lenders and investors expect evidence of fiscal responsibility. However, economic management cannot become an exercise confined to spreadsheets and statistical targets. A budget is ultimately a social contract between the state and its citizens. It reflects not only where money is collected and spent, but also whose interests are prioritised and whose sacrifices are expected.
The approved Finance Bill suggests that the government’s principal focus remains the generation of additional revenue. While some concessions have been introduced, including lower sales tax on selected stationery items and greater procedural safeguards before the confiscation of assets, these changes offer only limited relief to ordinary households. They do little to address the everyday financial pressures experienced by families coping with persistently high inflation, rising utility bills, increasing transport costs and stagnant incomes. For many citizens, economic hardship is no longer an occasional challenge but a permanent feature of daily life. Against that backdrop, modest tax adjustments are unlikely to alter public perceptions that the burden of economic recovery continues to fall disproportionately on those least able to bear it.
The controversy surrounding tax exemptions for aircraft and aviation parts illustrates this wider concern. Extending such incentives to registered airlines alongside Pakistan International Airlines may be defended as an attempt to encourage investment and modernise the aviation sector. A stronger aviation industry could, in theory, improve connectivity, stimulate tourism and support broader economic activity. Yet public policy is judged not only by its economic rationale but also by its sense of fairness. At a time when basic consumer goods remain expensive and households face relentless financial pressure, generous tax concessions for an industry associated with significant capital investment inevitably create the impression that the priorities of government are skewed towards those with greater economic influence.
That perception becomes even more difficult to ignore when viewed against the troubled history of Pakistan International Airlines. Decades of political interference, inconsistent management, financial mismanagement and delayed reforms steadily weakened what was once regarded as one of the region’s leading carriers. Successive governments failed to implement the structural changes necessary to restore its competitiveness while it remained under public ownership. The eventual drive towards privatisation emerged not because public ownership was inherently unsustainable, but because years of neglect had allowed the airline’s difficulties to deepen. Offering generous fiscal incentives after that decline risks sending an unfortunate message that meaningful support becomes available only once valuable public assets have deteriorated or changed hands.
Public confidence in economic policymaking depends as much on perception as on measurable outcomes. Citizens are more willing to accept difficult reforms when they believe that the burdens are being shared fairly across society. Conversely, when fiscal decisions appear to favour well-connected sectors while ordinary taxpayers continue to shoulder rising costs, trust begins to erode. That erosion carries consequences extending far beyond economic debate. Confidence in public institutions, democratic governance and the legitimacy of policymaking itself gradually weakens when people conclude that government policies consistently benefit a privileged minority while offering limited protection to everyone else.
Budgets are often described in technical language dominated by fiscal deficits, taxation frameworks and macroeconomic indicators. For most citizens, however, their meaning is considerably simpler. People judge economic policy by whether they can afford groceries without sacrificing other essentials, whether employment opportunities become more accessible, whether electricity and gas bills remain within reach, and whether they can plan for the future with greater confidence than they could the previous year. International financial institutions may applaud fiscal consolidation, and investors may welcome stronger revenue collection, but those achievements cannot by themselves restore public confidence if ordinary families see little improvement in their own circumstances.
Ultimately, a successful budget is not defined by the volume of taxes it collects or the precision of its financial projections. It is defined by whether citizens believe their sacrifices are leading towards a more secure, equitable and prosperous future. If future budgets continue to prioritise fiscal arithmetic while failing to deliver visible improvements in living standards, public frustration will deepen and confidence in democratic institutions will continue to decline. The government still has an opportunity to demonstrate that economic reform and social justice are not competing objectives but complementary ones. Only by placing ordinary citizens at the centre of fiscal policy can Pakistan hope to rebuild trust and ensure that economic recovery is measured not simply by stronger revenues, but by stronger lives.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
