one side of picture. it should be noted that an organization has totally opposite interests and goals when compared to a country`s. A ceo may well handle economic side of picture but there are lots of need to be considered when pursuing economic policy of a country.keep in mind that,irrespective of the fact that a ceo and a prime minister have more or less same duties to perform but a leader having support of its constituency has to take sometimes such decisions which a imposed person cant take due to the fact of its job nature activities.
Example would be nice considering the role of CEO is similar while keeping the company profitable in running and ruthless concerning the budgets matter as well as the professionalism factor. Plus, with the nation running in profitable and economically independenc; the budgets improve in leaps and bounds in regards to the benefits concerning the civilians.
As far as Zardari`s experience was concerned so it may be a one factor but whole thing was not due to this. other factors also played very important role mainly the 'focus on priorities and domestic as well as foreign outlook' played a very crucial role in demising of Pak economy other then the fact that Musharaf and its cohorts developed such a structure of economy which had to fall once they left.
What exactly did Musharraf do that left with the stable economy behind for Zardari? It is not exactly economy if it is bankrolled by funding. At that rate, the nation would remain dependable on the fundings to keep the economy afloat, in essence the nation is hardly economically independence to begin with.