Every time a new cabinet reshuffle is announced in Jordan, popular and elite circles alike renew their questions about how ministers are chosen: Why this person? Why was that person dismissed? And why are some names recycled despite widespread criticism?

These questions reveal a persistent structural flaw in the way ministerial appointments are managed, where personal connections and non-institutional considerations often outweigh competence, achievement, and scientific evaluation.

In principle, a minister in any country is supposed to be a senior public official selected based on clear criteria related to their experience in the relevant sector, reformist vision, strategic management capability, and professional and ethical track record. Likewise, their exit from government should also be based on announced performance evaluation criteria, measuring achievements and failures against specific timelines and performance indicators.

Yet in the Jordanian context, as in many developing countries, the reality looks quite different; names are usually decided in narrow circles behind closed doors, where social considerations, personal relationships, and regional balances play a role that is no less—and sometimes even more—important than merit and competence.

Establishing clear criteria for selecting ministers is not an administrative luxury but a national necessity to restore trust between citizens and the state and to ensure that cabinet changes represent real progress rather than mere political theater. Among these criteria is that the minister should have genuine expertise and practical experience, having worked for many years in the sector they will lead—whether in government institutions, the private sector, or civil society—making them familiar with the details and aware of the challenges.

In addition, they must have a measurable reform vision, presenting a public program with specific objectives and performance indicators that are shared with the public and later used as a benchmark to evaluate their performance. Equally important is that their professional and personal record should be clean and free from corruption allegations or ethical violations, and they should be known for discipline and teamwork. Furthermore, the ability to communicate and persuade is essential; the minister is not merely a bureaucratic figure but the government’s public face before the media, parliament, and citizens, requiring effective communication skills and the capacity to engage in dialogue responsibly and constructively.

The departure of ministers is no less important than their appointment. A minister’s exit should be the result of an objective evaluation: Did they deliver on their promises? Did the sector improve under their tenure? Were their decisions sound and well-considered? Dismissal should not be a political reward or the result of personal disputes, just as remaining in office should not be tied to the favor of influential figures or transient friendships.

The absence of clear exit criteria leads to two negative phenomena: first, the recycling of the same names across multiple governments despite the lack of tangible achievements, which erodes public trust in any talk of reform; second, the settling of scores within governments or between them and other institutions, turning cabinet reshuffles from a tool for reform into a battleground of conflicting interests.

This flaw could be addressed by creating an independent unit or national committee to evaluate ministers’ performance, linked to the Prime Ministry—or preferably to the Parliament in countries that rely on parliamentary selection of governments—and operating according to transparent criteria with results periodically published for the public.

The evaluation should rely on quantitative and qualitative indicators, such as sector growth rates, unemployment rates, quality of services provided, percentage of the ministerial program implemented, in addition to opinion polls measuring citizen and stakeholder satisfaction with the ministry’s work.

Reforming the mechanism for selecting or dismissing ministers should not be seen as an isolated administrative measure, but as part of a broader political reform: a mature party system that produces party-based governments with clear programs; a stronger role for parliament in monitoring ministerial performance; independent media highlighting failures and successes; and, above all, a societal culture that values competence and achievement over patronage and personal connections.

In a country like Jordan facing complex economic and social challenges, it is no longer acceptable to continue managing governments in an improvised manner driven by narrow relationships and balances. What is needed today are clear, transparent, and publicly announced criteria for selecting and dismissing ministers—criteria that reaffirm the idea of public office as a national responsibility rather than a personal reward, and rebuild trust between citizens and the state on the basis of competence and achievement rather than names and titles.

Let us not forget that political reform is always a source of strength and resilience for any country—and it is the gateway to economic reform.