For generations, Pakistan’s civil services have stood as a gateway to public administration, diplomacy, and law enforcement, drawing talent from a wide range of academic backgrounds. But now, with the introduction of the Cluster-Based Competitive Examination (CBCE), a fundamental shift is underway, sparking intense debate among aspirants and policymakers alike.
The idea behind CBCE is simple – align candidates with service groups based on their educational qualifications. Yet, in its attempt to introduce specialization, the new system risks alienating talented individuals whose degrees do not fit neatly into predefined clusters. Instead of creating a more efficient bureaucracy, CBCE could unintentionally shrink the talent pool and weaken the very institutions it aims to strengthen.
Take, for instance, graduates in literature, history, and social sciences. These individuals are trained in critical thinking, research, and policy analysis – skills that are essential for governance and administration. Under the traditional Central Superior Services (CSS) examination system, these graduates had equal opportunities to compete for top positions in the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS), Foreign Service of Pakistan (FSP), and other key bureaucratic roles. But now, with CBCE, there is a risk that their qualifications may not correspond to any service cluster. Should the government overlook professionals who have been traditionally responsible for shaping policy, law, and governance simply because their degrees don’t fit predefined categories?
At a time when the country needs innovative and forward-thinking governance, creating unnecessary barriers for talented individuals is a step in the wrong direction.
The issue extends beyond social sciences. Candidates from Pure Sciences and Medical Sciences face even greater uncertainty. While engineers and economists might find a place in technical clusters, what about graduates in physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine? Many of these professionals have served in key administrative positions over the years, proving that an academic degree does not define leadership ability or governance acumen.
If CBCE restricts their eligibility, Pakistan could lose an entire segment of highly skilled individuals who could contribute to public administration, science diplomacy, governance, and digital transformation. A rigid CBCE system, instead of fostering efficiency, risks turning away brilliant minds who could otherwise play a transformative role in governance.
Another pressing concern is the favouritism of certain academic disciplines within CBCE. The system appears to prioritize degrees in Management Sciences, Public Administration, Law, Criminology, International Relations, and Commerce, giving these candidates a clear advantage in securing governance-related roles.
While these fields are no doubt relevant to bureaucracy, what about engineers? If the new system confines them solely to Pakistan Railways, it could be a severe miscalculation. Engineers have historically contributed to public works, energy policy, IT governance, and infrastructure development – critical areas that require administrative oversight. Pakistan cannot afford to sideline its best problem solvers at a time when technology and innovation are reshaping governance worldwide.
Beyond academic biases, CBCE also raises serious questions about the future of the military quota, which reserves 10 percent of civil service positions for military officers. In a system designed to match candidates to positions based on their educational backgrounds, where will military personnel fit? The current practice allows them to be inducted into PAS, FSP, and PSP without going through the CSS process, a move that has long been a point of contention among civilian aspirants.
If CBCE is truly about specialization, should military officers be limited to PSP, where their expertise in security and law enforcement is most relevant? Or will they continue to be placed in administrative and diplomatic roles, despite lacking formal training in governance and foreign affairs? Retaining the military quota without modifying it to align with CBCE could create major contradictions within the system, undermining the very principles of meritocracy and specialization that CBCE claims to uphold. Therefore, the government must decide whether to revise the quota to fit CBCE or eliminate it to ensure fair competition and a transparent civil service recruitment process.
Instead of introducing a restrictive examination system, Pakistan should focus on strengthening civil service training programs. The real issue is not the selection process but the lack of specialized post-recruitment training. A more practical approach would be to enhance and extend the existing training programs at civil service academies, ensuring that officers – regardless of their educational background – acquire the skills needed for their respective service groups. Many of the world’s most successful bureaucracies rely on continuous training, professional certifications, and career development programs, rather than filtering candidates at the entry stage based on their degrees. Why should Pakistan be any different?
A rigid CBCE system may do more harm than good. Instead of expanding opportunities, it could narrow the talent pool, depriving Pakistan’s civil services of the diverse expertise needed for modern governance. At its core, bureaucracy should reflect the diversity of the country’s educated population, ensuring that governance benefits from a broad spectrum of knowledge, perspectives, and problem-solving abilities. The ultimate goal should not be classification based on degrees but the recruitment of individuals with the vision, intelligence, and leadership required to serve Pakistan effectively.
One possible alternative to CBCE is a specialization-based training model within service groups. Newly recruited officers could undergo comprehensive foundational training, followed by specialized coursework tailored to their assigned service groups. For example, an FSP officer should complete intensive training in international diplomacy, while PSP officers should undergo rigorous law enforcement and crisis management training. This model ensures specialization without limiting opportunities at the recruitment stage. Instead of rigid pre-selection based on degrees, a structured career development pathway would allow officers to gain expertise over time, making them more effective in their roles.
If CBCE is implemented without flexibility, fairness, and inclusivity, it may weaken Pakistan’s administrative structure rather than strengthen it. At a time when the country needs innovative and forward-thinking governance, creating unnecessary barriers for talented individuals is a step in the wrong direction. The government still has time to rethink its approach – before Pakistan’s civil services lose the very diversity that makes them effective.
The writer is a PhD scholar and author of various books on international relations, criminology and gender studies. He can be reached at fastian.mentor @gmail.com