Pakistan’s Future: Caught Between the IMF and Public Anger

Pakistan, June 5 — Every few years, a familiar scene plays out in Pakistan: the government announces a deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), promising economic stability in exchange for reforms. Officials declare it a “necessary sacrifice” while trying to sound upbeat. But outside the air-conditioned press conferences, electricity bills skyrocket, petrol prices jump overnight, and a frustrated public wonders: “Who is this sacrifice really for?”

Pakistan’s latest plan with the IMF, under a $7 billion Extended Fund Facility, is no different. As the government struggles to unlock the next phase of funding, it’s also fighting another, more unpredictable force, which is public rage. In 2023 and 2024, Pakistan saw unprecedented inflation, fuel riots in rural towns, and lawyers filing constitutional petitions challenging utility price hikes. The pressure is rising, and not just economically.

The economic reforms required by the IMF include increased taxation, reduced subsidies, and market-based pricing of energy and fuel. These may help improve the country’s fiscal performance in the long run, but in the short term, they are making everyday life more expensive. Electricity bills have gone up. Fuel prices have risen sharply. Food items cost more than they did even a few months ago. For millions of people living on fixed incomes, this isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s destabilizing. Many citizens are now raising questions about their constitutional protections. Under Article 9 of Pakistan’s Constitution, every person has the right to life, which the courts have interpreted to include basic necessities like food, shelter, and access to essential utilities. When policy changes drastically increase the cost of these necessities, legal experts argue that it may breach the principle of socio-economic justice.

Politically, the IMF program is a ticking time bomb. The previous PTI government reluctantly signed the program in 2019, only to slam it once in opposition. The current coalition inherited a near-empty treasury and walked into the same fire, promising reforms but fearing elections. With the future elections coming up-close, every price hike becomes a political gamble. And this is where Pakistan’s democratic process collides with economic necessity. Every government signs an IMF deal but lacks the political will, or the legal tools, to implement the structural reforms required. Why? Because in our winner-takes-all politics, short-term survival beats long-term planning. The result: blame games, public distrust, and an economy running on borrowed time and money.

The real danger isn’t just economic, it’s institutional. Pakistan lacks strong legal frameworks to manage such transitions fairly. There’s no social safety net law robust enough to cushion the poor during IMF-driven austerity. The Benazir Income Support Programme helps, but it’s not enough when inflation hits 30%. Labor laws are outdated. Public consultation is minimal. Even Parliament, which should debate IMF terms, often rubber-stamps them without question. This disconnect has serious consequences. When the people feel unheard and unprotected, democracy becomes a shell. The law loses legitimacy. And that’s when populism, or worse, authoritarianism, creeps in through the cracks.

Pakistan’s legal system has a significant role to play in this moment. The courts have previously taken up cases related to excessive billing, fuel pricing, and taxation. In some instances, courts have ruled in favour of public interest, citing Article 38, which emphasizes the state’s responsibility to promote the social and economic well-being of the people. Moreover, legal scholars have pointed out that economic policy must still adhere to principles of transparency, accountability, and equal protection under the law. Any tax increase or subsidy cut must be debated, legislated, and explained clearly to the public. This is not just good governance, it is a constitutional requirement under Articles 19A and 25, which deal with the right to information and equality before the law. Public participation in economic decisions, whether through parliamentary debate, public consultations, or judicial oversight, is what gives reforms legitimacy. Without that legal backing, even well-intentioned policies can be seen as unfair or imposed.

The real question is no longer just about IMF tranches. It’s about who gets to decide Pakistan’s future. Is it the bureaucrats in Islamabad and bankers in New York, or the 240 million people who bear the brunt of every policy decision? Pakistan stands at a crossroads. One path leads to more external dependency, legal fragility, and public fury. The other demands political courage, legal reform, and a new kind of economic thinking, one that puts the citizen, not just the spreadsheet, at the centre. The clock is ticking, and this time, default may not be just financial. It could be democratic.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of our organization.