THE decision by the government to revive Pakistan Steel Mills instead of proceeding with liquidation is encouraging. Pakistan needs a strong industrial base and a functioning steel complex can support manufacturing, infrastructure, employment and import substitution. But before another revival plan is welcomed, an important question must be asked. Who is accountable for the years lost in indecision?
Pakistan Steel Mills remained closed for years while successive governments debated whether it should be revived, privatized, liquidated or whether its vast land should be used for other economic purposes, including a special economic zone. During this period, the country continued to bear salaries, administrative expenses, security costs and other liabilities while the mill produced nothing.
This is not simply a financial issue. It is the cost of delayed decision making. A dormant national asset also means deterioration of machinery, loss of skilled manpower, lost production, opportunity cost of valuable land and continued dependence on imported steel. If liquidation was considered the best option, it should have been carried out promptly and transparently. If revival was commercially viable, restructuring should have started much earlier. Keeping such a major national asset suspended between different policy options may have been the most costly choice of all.
The renewed interest from Russian entities provides another opportunity. Yet the public is entitled to ask what assurance exists that this attempt will be different. A credible revival plan should clearly state the capital required, production targets, financing structure, management model, commercial viability, implementation timeline and responsibility for each stage.
The deeper problem is often not state ownership but the way state-owned enterprises are governed and managed. Governments have repeatedly failed to appoint competent professionals, empower them to run enterprises on commercial principles and hold them accountable for results. Weak boards, political interference, poor appointments and delayed decisions can reduce valuable national assets to below-standard performance. Such failures should not be used as evidence that government involvement in business is inherently flawed; rather, they underline the need for professional management, policy consistency and accountability. It is, therefore, unfair to place the entire blame on the enterprise while ignoring those responsible for its direction and oversight. Pakistan needs accountability for indecision just as much as accountability for financial irregularities. An independent review should examine the financial burden incurred during the closure, earlier revival and privatization efforts, reasons previous initiatives failed, decisions taken by relevant ministries and boards and the opportunity cost of keeping the mill dormant.
The purpose should not be political point scoring. It should be institutional learning and protection of national assets. Pakistan Steel Mills has become a test case for how the country manages major state assets. The people deserve more than another revival announcement. They deserve transparent decisions, measurable targets, professional governance and accountability for unnecessary delays. If Pakistan Steel Mills is to be revived, its revival must begin with accountability, transparency and timely decision making.
—The author regularly writes on industry, governance and economic policy.
