Now correct me if I'm wrong but the one thing I don't like about Qadri is that he's not a very good team player.
From what I recall Imran tried to form a coalition with the PAT but Qadri turned him down and only agreed after the brutal Model Town murders which lead him to join Imran in the Azadi March.
The PML-N is truly horrendous if people actually acknowledge that these protestors lives are in danger. These are unarmed protestors, our brothers and sisters, and the murder or assault of our own isn't acceptable.
Everyone participating in that protest is there of their own free will not by coercion. They are risking their lives for the betterment of their nation and people and I see them as patriots.
Regardless of whether a Pakistani agrees or disagrees with the protests we need to ensure that our people, those protestors, are protected. Property can always be replaced but our peoples lives can't.
As for Imran Khan I wasn't aware that he ever left the protests. However, there may be times when he'll need to be rushed out particularly in light of what happened in Model Town.
It's because the PML-N is employing the exact same failed neoliberal economic policies employed by the PPP and initially started by Musharraf.
Let me begin by stating that
"protectionism makes you rich"
George Monbiot: One thing is clear from the history of trade: protectionism makes you rich | Comment is free | The Guardian
Musharraf virtually eliminated import barriers (i.e. tarrifs/duties), a major source of tax revenue pre-1999 coup that also protected Pakistan's domestic industries:
Applied Tarrif Rate (simple mean) % of GDP
This took Pakistan from a country with a relatively stable balance of trade since our independence in '47 to one with huge growing year on year trade deficits post-1999:
This policy has continued under the PPP government which went ahead with the FTA (free trade agreement) with China which resulted in our
trade deficit with them increasing by 50% since it was implemented in 2007 and now the PML-N is pushing forward an NDMA/MFN with India which will fail just as badly if not worse further ruining our economy all while supporting a hostile nation.
Furthermore, this policy tanked the countries tax to GDP ratio from a high of 13.8% in '96 (12.8% in '99) to the sub 10% levels they are now.
This has resulted in the
government having lost billions of dollars in tax revenue since '99 that could have been put towards crucial development projects. Had Musharraf left import barriers in place and instead focused on increasing compliance with the countries tax laws (ex. personal income tax) raising the tax to GDP ratio to 18% instead of lowering it to 10% and that policy had continued until now (i.e. through the PPP and PML-N governments) the country would have over
$160 billion USD in additional revenue for development/industrialization and if spent correctly would easily have saved the country tens of billions in lost foreign exchange (which could have also been re-invested into increased industrialization). We could easily have grown well over 12% a year and frankly should have left India in the dust by now.
Protectionist policies have been employed by virtually all of the world's most successful economies (ex. US, Britain, Germany, S. Korea, etc...) during their early stages of development.
To give an example let's look at S. Korea...
Ha-Joon Chang, one of the world's foremost development economists, was born in '53 and grew up in South Korea as it emerged out of poverty so he knows better than anyone how it developed into the economy it is today and has an on the ground perspective others do not. South Korea was so protectionist they even taught school children to report anyone who was even seen smoking foreign cigarettes:
"The country’s obsession with economic development was fully reflected in our education. We learned that it was our patriotic duty to report anyone seen smoking foreign cigarettes. The country needed to use every bit of the foreign exchange earned from its exports in order to import machines and other
inputs to develop better industries."
(Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, 2007, [pg. xiv])
South Korea developed under strict import bans/quotas, tariffs and duties to protect local industries during their initial years of development and prevent the loss of the foreign exchange they earned through exports which they put almost exclusively towards industrialization (ex. buying capital equipment) not amenities like vegetable oil, tea, clothing, etc... Ha-Joon Chang even describes stories of US military MRI's, which American soldiers considered trash, being regarded a delicacy to South Koreans and even horded by Korean officers to give as gifts because of how poor quality their food was in the 50s and 60s.
Here is a chart of South Korea’s simple mean tariff rate as a % of all manufactured goods (again only going back to the very late 80s since that's all the information South Korea ever shared with the World Bank). Had information been available going back to the 60s and 70s you'd have seen the mean tariff rate been even higher and that doesn't even take into account the fact they had strict import quota's and bans.
Tariff rates (i.e. import barriers) decreased over time as the country continued to industrialize but, as was the case with a host of the words most developed economies, they were initially very high to protect local industries from foreign competition.
In fact South Korea is actually increasing tariffs on primary products (i.e. primarily agricultural) which are the highest amongst the G-20 countries (India and Brazil come in second and third respectively):
Why?
It's most likely due to South Korea's agricultural productivity having significantly increased and with a declining population they're protecting their own agricultural sector from foreign competition not just to make themselves more self sufficient but also to avoid losing valuable foreign exchange:
I've noticed this crazy fixation among some Pakistanis, even politicians, on FDI (foreign direct investment) but as I've stated in many posts on PDF none of the worlds most developed economies depended on it for development particularly considering its not a stable source of development revenue.
In the case of South Korea FDI has been virtually non-existent.
To provide some visuals here is a chart of FDI inflows (i.e. we aren't taking into account outflows) as a % of GDP for South Korea (this is even less than what has been going to China and S. Korea is far richer on a per capita basis):
South Korea like virtually every successful economy today grew by investing in itself and strictly controlling imports limiting them, as much as possible, to solely bringing in capital equipment to advance their own industries (not personal consumption items and other luxuries).
These countries did not develop on FDI
Now here is a chart of S. Korea's gross fixed capital formation (i.e. the amount of money a country spends on land improvements like ditches and drains; construction of roads, railways that aid in trade; commercial and industrial buildings as well as plants, machinery, and equipment purchases; infrastructure like hospitals, schools and residential housing that improves a peoples standard of living, etc...)
What you'll notice is that the FDI inflows (again we're not taking into consideration outflows) reached its peak in '99 at about 2% of GDP which accounted for only about 7.5% of total gross capital formation in South Korea while the rest (92.5%) was sourced domestically from within the country itself.
Investment capital is almost completely sourced internally and comes from both domestic industry (whose profits increase with import barriers and through exports) and from government led investment using tax/non-tax revenues.
I can link you or anyone else who has bothered to keep reading up to this point a series of posts I've made on this topic which can give you a lot more information that also covers Pakistan's tax policies if you're interested.
