The first-ever successful transfer of power from one democratically-elected government to another marks the beginning of a new era in Pakistan. The PM is all set to drive the country to a new destination most likely to the better one, as the federal cabinet has now been formed. The core purpose of the cabinet is policymaking to set forth the fundamental guidelines for political and economic development. This is how the government will move forward to its calculated goals. The cabinet is the statutory body answerable to Parliament for its decisions and policy formulation, and bears collective responsibility; whereas, the PM is solely authorised to fill the ministerial slots. Its composition in a country like Pakistan where parliamentary democracy is not so mature is a gigantic task; under the constitution, its role is defined in Article 81 (C) that reads as: “There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers, with the Prime Minister at its head, to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. The Cabinet, together with the Ministers of State, shall be collectively responsible to the Senate and the National Assembly.”PM Nawaz Sharif has announced his 25-member cabinet; of those, 16 are federal or full ministers, while nine are ministers of state. He has sensibly decided to keep the ministerial portfolios of defence and foreign offices. As a matter of fact, both ministries have never been a subject of cabinet debate. The general impression is that the PM has learned a lot from past mistakes and he stands clear on the civil-military divide. The future of Pakistan lion rests on this notion. Having said that, major share of ministers, 19 out of the 25 ministers have been taken from the core political base of PML-N: Punjab. Given the current situation, the cabinet as statuary body for political decision making at the national level must be designed in a way that aligns to strengthen the federation.This time around, running the country is far from a bed of roses. Presently, the ministers assigned to various portfolios are PML–N stalwarts, many of whom have earlier experience of running more or less the same departments and divisions. The questions, however, are: to what extent are they equipped with instruments and direction to cope with the challenges of uplifting the value of life and upholding the honour of the masses? Do they have the policies and political vision to make policies specific to their jurisdiction? How instrumental can they be in yielding the desirable results? Can they develop key structural features? These questions have rarely been of common discussion. Ministerial slots are plums postings, usually awarded to the most loyal. We have seen all too often that loyalty, rather than any particular capability of providing solution to the problems, rewarding political heavyweight, bowing to political pressures, and accommodating coalition partners seem to be the dominating factors in awarding ministerial posts. The game is to satisfy the appetite of the powerbrokers and keep them into the fold of the government.Cabinets often find themselves locked into no role. The role of the cabinet is squeezed to that of the spectators, with real policymaking discussions and decisions taken elsewhere. The irony of the situation reduces the cabinet to the task of rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere. The formal reporting in full cabinet sessions remains short of due focus to decide multifaceted policies and alternatives. We regularly witness that decisions are even made before the sessions of the cabinet and sometimes not shared at all. Mostly, the Chief Executive relies on inner core or “kitchen” cabinets for decision-making of utmost importance. Core cabinets have a distinctive role and it never integrates a systematic collective cabinet decision making process, assuming the major role. All issues of critical public importance are supposed to be routed to the cabinet, but the decisions are delegated to others bypassing the cabinet so much so that the relevant ministry is not taken into the loop. It becomes a matter of sole discretion of the PM to make the decisions of his choices and contending views are put aside. Everyone succumbs to the will of Chief Executive. Usually, findings and recommendations put forward by any member of the cabinet proceed with little further discussion and thus are rarely implemented. In the past, actions were not envisioned through collective perspective and consequently, the country was thrown into deep hot water. Comprehensive policymaking is instrumental in designing policy framework requiring the limited size of portfolio. The 18th Amendment sensibly put bars on inflated cabinets and this has eased the job for PM Nawaz. It is expected that at this point in time, the cabinet size would be moderate enough to be justified.Enjoying the protocol and privilege associated with ministerial portfolio, getting development funds, and giving employment letters merely appears to be the purpose of becoming a minister. Such ministers are relatively less competent and find it an uphill task to match with the experienced staff of their bureaucracy. If any untoward incident happens in any of the ministries, the ministers do not consider themselves accountable. The matter does not proceed further; just an inquiry of the incident is established. The situation leads to weak policymaking capacity and paves the way for bureaucratic manipulation. Poor liaison and the consequent inability to synchronise with each other, mutual distrust between civil servants and ministers weakens the state apparatus.Bureaucratic unwieldiness often makes policy development and implementation more complex. The complicated bureaucratic machinery, meetings and paperwork, designed to assist the ministers is cumbersome, time-consuming and fosters manipulation. The adverse impact of bureaucratic structures for advice, review, information and coordination leave the minister looking astray in meetings and reviewing documents. Shaping ministerial submission and resource allocation is solely left at the discretion of bureaucracy that further dilutes the role of ministers and civil servants, in turn, abuse the situation. Only a competent individual, having good command over the subject matter, who can assert a stronger political control qualifies for a ministerial portfolio. The insertion of special political adviser by the minister to provide professional advice is a relatively disturbing phenomenon and has wreaked havoc in the system. Giving their comprehensive, precise and timely input and advices in devising mechanisms, should be the top priority of all members of the cabinet. Citizens’ participation in policymaking should be made practical through rendering Parliament into house of accountability of elected ones, strengthening the question hours and private members day proceeding, and giving standing committee powers to hold the power corridors responsible for lack of implementation of their decisions. The PML-N government is not awarded with smooth sailing anyway; time and tide both are at odds to test the ability, political will and sincerity in service delivery. The public is in no mood to tolerate incompetence and lack of sense of responsibility. The challenge is to save Pakistan and restore faith in government. There is no otherwise to care for. 
nThe writer is working in the Learning Resource Centre of the University of Management and Technology.