The World Scrutinizes the Appointment Process
When a cabinet is formed in any country around the world, the process is driven by the need to identify who is best suited for the assigned roles, and whether they are experts—in other words, technocrats. Technocrats are specialists selected to make decisions and manage institutions based on their scientific competence, while also possessing a thorough understanding of administrative procedures, the nature of institutional operations, and teamwork, without any flaws in their professional conduct.
This selection process is built on a long track record, beginning with the monitoring of innovators in universities and their behavior in society. It is impossible to appoint a minister or official if there are questions marks regarding their social conduct, or if they have committed misdemeanors or felonies. Therefore, the art of selection involves multiple factors, including a comprehensive review of their files and how they manage their private affairs, whether they have commercial, scientific, political, service-oriented, industrial, or other activities that fall within the purview of their ministry. This is done to ensure they are not a "dark horse" in the government lineup that could hinder developmental and political trajectories.
Sports News
Discover Arab Events
News Archive
This approach ensures the stability of ministerial positions, enabling the ministry to work on everything that helps achieve the government’s program objectives. The minister becomes capable of making decisive decisions within their portfolio that serve the public interest, rather than personal interests that negatively impact the state.
This element is often missing in many Third World countries, where responsibilities are entrusted to non-specialists. This results in a vicious cycle of recycling past achievements, which have long since faded, and portraying them as major accomplishments. At times, officials resort to hasty, ill-considered decisions that impose high costs on society, only to later reverse them, thereby increasing the costs even further.
Therefore, when a cabinet reshuffle occurs, all these criteria are presented to those responsible for selecting suitable candidates for the positions, ensuring that the reshuffle yields tangible results rather than serving as mere appeasement, as was the case in the past. In previous years, ministers were often chosen either due to familial ties with a specific deputy or because the individual was "well-liked in the diwaniya circles," despite their proven failure over the years, with the same mistakes being repeated each time.
On this basis, the selection of assistants was also marred by numerous criticisms. Thus, we ask: Why is there no established standard for selecting expert individuals, and why are administrative practices and executive decision-making not governed by strict criteria that prevent hesitant decisions or choices that do not serve the people and the country?
Undoubtedly, this requires the establishment of a specialized department to monitor innovators in universities and even in the business community, and to structure selection processes accordingly across all ministries, whether service-oriented or political. This is what happens in developed countries, which strive for sustainable development aligned with the state’s higher objectives and serving society, thereby enhancing their collective progress.
In a previous instance, we noted that state decisions are executive in nature, crafted by those with acumen and deep vision. Countries that have failed did not rely on technocrats; instead, they adopted quota-based allocation as their approach. Consequently, several Arab countries, such as Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, have stumbled.
Finally, let us put an end to years of reckless decision-making by individuals who lacked the necessary expertise before assuming their positions.
