When a cabinet is formed in any country, the process is guided by the need to evaluate the chosen individual’s suitability for the assigned task. Is the appointee an expert in the field – a technocrat selected for decision-making and institutional management based on professional competence? Does he understand administrative procedures, institutional workflows and teamwork, rather than acting impulsively or unilaterally?
This selection follows a long vetting process that begins with identifying high achievers in universities and observing their conduct within society. A minister or official whose social behavior is questionable or has a record of misdemeanors or felonies should not be appointed. The art of selection involves multiple steps, such as reviewing the entire dossier of the candidates and examining how they managed their previous endeavors – whether commercial, academic, political, service-oriented or industrial -- particularly in areas relevant to the ministry they are about to lead.
This ensures they do not become a ‘wild card’ or a liability within the government that hinders developmental and political progress. Such a rigorous approach ensures stability in the ministerial role, allowing the ministry to focus on achieving the objectives of the government’s program. It empowers the minister to make decisive choices that serve public interests rather than personal agendas that could negatively impact the state. This practice is often lacking in many Third World countries, where responsibilities are entrusted to non-specialists. Consequently, these nations remain trapped in a vicious cycle of recycling outdated— long past their prime- and presenting them as major successes. Officials may also resort to hasty and ill-conceived decisions that impose high costs on society.
Once these decisions are reversed, the cost to the public rises even further. Therefore, whenever a cabinet reshuffle occurs, all these criteria should be presented to those responsible for selecting appointees to ensure the reshuffle yields the desired results rather than serving as just a means of appeasement, as was the case in the past. Previously, ministers were often chosen based on kinship with a specific member of the parliament or simply because a man was ‘good company’ in the ‘diwaniya’ (social gathering).
Despite their proven failure over the years, the same pattern is often repeated. Similarly, the selection of assistants and deputies has usually been open to criticism. We must ask: Why do we not adopt a standard for selecting real experts? Why are the administrative practices and executive decision-making not governed by rigorous criteria that prevent indecision or action detrimental to public interest and the nation?
Undoubtedly, this requires a dedicated unit to identify high-achieving talent in universities or the business sector, and to institutionalize a selection process based on merit in all ministries, both service-oriented and political. This is the practice in developed nations that strive for sustainable development, aligned with supreme national goals and societal well-being -- an approach that elevates the nation as a whole. We previously pointed out that the fate of nations hinges on executive decisions made by individuals with acumen and profound vision.
Nations that failed did not rely on technocrats. Instead, they adopted a system of sectarian or factional quotas -- a path that led to the collapse of several Arab countries like Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. In the end, we have had enough of the years of reckless decision-making by individuals who lacked the necessary experience before assuming office
