Governance: Choosing the HEC Chairperson

This article presents a critical analysis of the controversial appointment criteria for the chairperson of Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC), contending that its narrow emphasis on academic achievements is a fundamental misstep in selecting effective leadership. The author meticulously details how recent amendments have truncated the term to a mere two years and established highly restrictive requirements, including "international eminence," a minimum of ten years post-PhD experience, and a distinguished research portfolio. The analysis identifies this approach as a myopic "shortcut" that favours measurable status symbols over the essential real-world competencies needed to manage Pakistan's complex higher education ecosystem. This flawed strategy is directly linked to two decades of persistent instability, internal power struggles, and conflict with government and university stakeholders. To illustrate a more effective model, the article draws instructive lessons from international precedents. It highlights the United Kingdom’s funding councils, which consistently appointed non-academic chairs with formidable administrative experience, and the United States, where state-level coordinating bodies are typically led by professionals valued for their skills in oversight, advocacy, and political negotiation—not their publication records. The author concludes by proposing a comprehensive alternative roadmap. Key recommendations include simplifying the restrictive criteria to attract a wider pool of candidates from industry, public service, and the non-profit sector; prioritizing relational and political skills over purely academic metrics; extending the untenable two-year term; and clearly differentiating the roles of the chairperson and Executive Director to mitigate conflict. The final, crucial recommendation advocates for a significant strengthening of the HEC Secretariat itself. The author argues it must be transformed from a mere executing body into a professionalized, evidence-based policy hub with robust in-house research capacity, thereby easing the unrealistic burden on the chairperson and fostering sustainable governance.