Political influence on the economy is its enemy

Given the fact that the main goal of the reform is the depoliticization of economic life, then also the liberalization of the economy is a priority. Liberalization encourages depoliticization because it deprives politicians of the opportunity to benefit from the various economic processes in the country. 

But on the other hand, a liberalization and opening up of the economy that is done without implementing the legal framework and bypassing the rules is a great evil, which discredits this reform and damages the future. 

Lack of law enforcement in time and with approved standards is also one of the biggest diseases that come from the influence of politics. Reasons for not implementing reforms are usually addressed by legal changes. 

One reason for this is the lack of accountability and transparency. Changing the laws loses the motive of accountability. Another reason is that passing a law to modify a legal practice is a strong reason for the law never to be enforceable to the end. It loses its consistency, its spirit and of course demotivates its implementation. 

Meanwhile, a good part of the laws that are changed come as a result of pressure for individual or group benefits, giving reasons for themselves not to be investigated and slandered by voters. 

It has never happened that governments have embarked on a comprehensive radical reform.Only a few measures considered reforms were radical. Practically all were successful, while all “moderate” policies have failed. The reformers who have been in power have faced ongoing political crises i.e. political destabilization, which is and will be the final stage of state failure and in more than a few cases the country has largely remained ungovernable. 

No radical reform is currently taking place without the blessing of leaders, but their involvement is insufficient for full political support. It is not enough to embrace reforms, when each of them with the model of leadership helps to shake the economy towards corrupt riots. Political influence on economic life is the root cause of the lack of economic efficiency. 

It is enough to mention just one fact in this regard. 

Citizens chosen to be protagonists in the liberalization processes of the economy over the years became quite rich when they transferred these goods guaranteed by state-owned enterprises to their private accounts through transfer corrupt prices, but also by not worrying about achieving the level of overt theft. 

After reaching this new standard of well-being, the interests of the managers of former state-owned enterprises, or even those young people who continue to lead them, they have moved away from individuals tasked with carrying out reforms. Managers who have been favored or continue to be part of the narrow private interest group need a prolonged, even costly, social transition. If the leader never realizes this, the fate of the reforms is failing. 

But while key reformers may understand this reality, they do not seem to feel that they should try to join forces and defeat the new class of managers who are strengthening themselves in the ready-made structures of public economy and with certain political support. 

They may seem like they love the state, but in fact the only purpose is to take advantage of it by managing to corrupt parts or all of the reformist leadership. 

Managers and executives of large companies that operate with budget money are the biggest opposition to the state, as the goal of obtaining funds is stronger than any other sense. 

Usually, major reforms are undertaken by young professionals coming from abroad bringing new knowledge and coordinating with the professionals of the country who know how to adapt them to the indoor environment. 

Although the current leadership seemed radical and determined, it is presented as a version that protects its “bets” with fate. In fact, it seems to be more intuitive than consistent. After appointing his new reform ministers, he keeps them at a distance and does not give them any direct opportunity to be close to him. 

That’s not a normal governance democratic habit. 

We have to wait and see how far this approach will affect the leadership of politics, which also affects the economy.