Government today is a large-scale administrative job requiring experts to operate it. Unless the electorate is given the opportunity to change the key experts as well as the politicians, elections will lose much of their significance. This problem will become more and more significant as efforts are made to increase the economic and social welfare role of the state. There is no simple solution to the dilemma of keeping government administration efficient as well as responsive to the will of the electorate. The increase in the power, function, and sheer size of modern government necessitates the bureaucracy. It is utopian to think that the electorate’s dismissal of the inexpert politician, who formally heads the bureaucracy, will by itself change the course of bureaucratic-activities. As Max Weber Stated. “The question is always who controls the existing bureaucratic machinery. And such control is possible only in a very technical specialists. Generally speaking, the trained permanent official is more likely to get his way in the long run than his nominal supervisor, the Cabinet Minister, who is not a specialist.” The focus on a single theory of bureaucracy has been encouraged by the lack of sociological approach among political scientists. For the most part they have not raised questions about the social origins and the relationship of such factors to government policy. It is possible that the political scientists’ blindness to the sources of civil-service “biases” may be related to their own identification with the government administrator, and their disinclination to accept the fact that the behaviour of their own group is determined by personal “Prejudice Creating” facts, presents the data to his minister, carries out the policy of the government in power, and then reverses his policy when new government comes into office. Political history has been analysed mainly in terms of struggles among interest groups and political parties. The civil service like the political scientists, was simply a passive, neutral factor. With improved understanding and changing perspective, however, political scientists have become aware of the fact that the government bureaucracy does play a significant role in determining policy. They still, however, leave the bureaucrat in a social vacuum. They now recognize that he plays an active role, but the determinants of that role are analysed purely on the bureaucratic level. The bureaucrat’s actions are analysed on the basis of the goals of the civil service-self-preservation and efficiency. These interests may be defined in terms of prestige and privilege, preservation of patterns of organization or relationships within a department, or maintenance of department traditions and policies. There is little recognition that the behaviour of government bureaucrats varies with the non-governmental social background and interest of those controlling the bureaucratic structure. Members of a civil service are also members of other governmental social groups and classes. Social pressures from many different group affiliations and loyalties determine individual behaviour in most groups in a given situation cannot be considered as if the individual or group members had no other life outside the given situation one is analysing. The theory of civil-service neutrality breaks down when the total goals of the state change. Change of party in government, however, does not usually require a civil servant to make any major adjustments. The functions of departments and of government as a whole remain fairly constant. There are no significant departures from a merit civil service except in rare cases, such as “Jacksonian democracy” of the U.S president Andrew Jackson and some deviations during the period of the American New Deal in the 1930’s. When some problems came to the attention of “The Roosevelt Administration”. The justified concern with the dangers of oligarchic or bureaucratic domination has, however, led many persons to ignore the fact that it does make a difference to society which set of bureaucrats controls its destiny. Many social scientists have suggested there is need to develop a bureaucratic social structure in order to operate efficiently. This still leaves a large area of indeterminate social action for a bureaucratically organized society. A deterministic theory of bureaucratic behaviour neglects the implication of an alternative pattern of bureaucratic response. Political scientists have become aware of the fact that the government bureaucracy does play a significant role in determining policy. They still, however, leave the bureaucrat in a social vacuum. They now recognise that he plays an active role, but the determinants of that role are analysed purely on the bureaucratic level The tradition and concept of a merit non-patronage civil service was related in many counties to the needs of the dominant business groups, who demanded cheap and efficient service from the state. J. Donald Kingsley has shown how in England the policy of Merit Civil Service grew with the increase in political power of the business class. The business groups desired an efficient state that would facilitate and protect the development of commerce. Permanent non-political officials insured continuity of government regulation and practices and made for stable relations with the state, regardless of shifts in party fortunes. This idea of merit civil service was not challenged as long as party politics remained contests between groups who accepted the basic orientation and activities of the state and the society. Rather than thinking of bifurcating the province of Punjab and inviting more political, social and economic troubles, giving an air to already existing prejudices and hate politics, it would be wise to create more bureaucratic structures for effective decentralisation of administrative system, and to facilitate devolution and efficiency of government as well as better representation of the people in the provincial set-up. We have to keep in view the challenges from within the ambit of governance and party politics. The writer is a Former Director, National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA), Government of Pakistan, a political analyst, a public policy expert and an author. His book post 9/11 Pakistan was published in the United States Published in Daily Times, October 10th 2018.