Pakistan’s fiscal constraints, geopolitical realities, climate vulnerability, and the demands of a mushrooming population require – among other things – a government that is agile, coordinated and relentlessly focused on results.
Every government pledges reform. Few ask the more fundamental question: Does Pakistan have a fit-for-purpose fundamental governance structure? If non-partisan thinkers are the respondents, the answer is a clear ‘No’.
Our challenges are manifold, but should they stop us from taking the right step? We lament the economy, resources, conflicts, etc, but have we ever thought about how we have used the available resources optimally and cost-effectively? Not the economy per se, but our fear of jumpstarting is the main obstacle.
A case in point is the federal government structure. The federal cabinet has steadily expanded over the years. Ministries with overlapping mandates frequently operate independently, often pursuing parallel policies with little institutional coordination. Planning develops long-term strategies while Commerce promotes exports and Industries designs industrial policy. Health addresses disease, Education develops human capital, Social Protection combats poverty and Skills Development focuses on employment, yet all pursue the same national objective: improving human development. Others are similarly managed through separate bureaucratic channels despite their deep interdependence.
This fragmentation produces four major consequences. First, policy duplication wastes scarce public resources. Second, coordination gaps delay decision-making. Third, accountability becomes blurred because multiple institutions run vertically. Finally, implementation suffers because no single authority owns outcomes. The result is a government that works harder than necessary while delivering less than expected. Accountability is the elephant in the room.
Instead of organising ministries according to historical bureaucratic boundaries, Pakistan should start by organising government around objective national missions. A lean cabinet of integrated ministries would strengthen coordination without reducing the state’s ability to perform its constitutional responsibilities. Instead of more than 30, it could be easily halved and strategically merged along thematic lines.
Finance and Economic Affairs could integrate fiscal policy, macroeconomic management and development financing under one leadership. Planning, Commerce and Industries would unite economic planning with industrial growth, exports and investment promotion. Energy, Petroleum and Water Security would coordinate electricity, petroleum and water management.
Social sector development would combine health, education, social protection and skills development while Food, Agriculture and Climate Resilience would integrate agricultural productivity, food security and climate adaptation into one coherent policy framework. Interior and Governance would oversee internal security, federal coordination and administrative reform.
Defence, Defence Production and Aviation offer much in common for integration. Foreign Affairs’ mandate may expand to incorporate narrative building, external lobbying and health diplomacy. Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs would accelerate legislative reform while improving coordination between Parliament and the executive. Digital Economy, Information Technology and Science would drive digital transformation, artificial intelligence, innovation and research-led economic growth. Culture, Religious Affairs and National Heritage would preserve Pakistan’s identity while promoting tourism, heritage conservation and interfaith harmony. Kashmir, Federal Territories and Gilgit-Baltistan Affairs may need an integrated, thin structure.
Such restructuring would substantially reduce duplication while preserving specialised technical expertise through separate divisions headed by professional experts, working in tandem with a lean bureaucratic structure. Restructuring ministries alone will not transform governance, though. Pakistan’s greater weakness lies in execution. Implementation frequently loses momentum because no institution systematically tracks delivery across government.
The PM’s Office therefore requires a constitutional National Delivery and Performance Authority (NDPA). Reporting directly to the prime minister, the NDPA would monitor implementation using measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), digital dashboards and quarterly performance reviews. Rather than creating another bureaucracy, it would function as the government’s performance engine. Every ministry would submit quarterly delivery reports. Every flagship programme would have measurable milestones. Every delay would require corrective action.
Many successful countries have already undertaken similar reforms. Singapore operates with a competence-focused cabinet supported by exceptionally strong civil service coordination. Ministries work toward national outcomes rather than isolated departmental goals. The UK established the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit, which significantly improved implementation of priority reforms through rigorous performance monitoring. Malaysia’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) transformed the culture of government by introducing measurable targets, ministerial accountability and regular public reporting.
The common lesson is clear: governments succeed when institutions collaborate around shared outcomes rather than operating in bureaucratic silos.
A government organised around national priorities, supported by a professional delivery system and measured through objective, transparent checks and balances, would push Pakistan closer to becoming a prosperous, modern, efficient and public-centric state.
There is no need to hire a brigade of consultants and experts. The remedy is simple: it just needs a bold step out of the comfort zone.
The writer is a former federal health minister. He tweets/posts @DrNadeemjan and can be reached at: [email protected]
