Just as deciding the vision of the university is important, the governance mechanism of the university is critical in ensuring that the vision is delivered. A bad governance mechanism not only undermines the vision but also creates fissures and disillusionment with the whole project. The worst thing a university can suffer is a faculty and staff which is unmotivated and even indifferent. Hence, the governance system of a university is critical for its success.

There are several models of university governance. Most American universities have a board of trustees or equivalent at the top, which sets the broad contours of the university, and is critical in fundraising. Often top businessmen, recently retired high government officials, and key opinion makers, are on these boards so that the university can benefit from their expertise and advice.

The presence of these top people helps the university when there are difficult issues to deal with and their membership of the board is critical when the time comes for fundraising as they can use their contacts and influence to get the much sought after donation. But compare these boards to those in Pakistan and one is almost shocked. While most private universities have these boards, they are either full of family, close friends, or government appointed persons. There is hardly an endeavour to get a broad cross-section of board members who have an independent voice and who might even disagree on a few things leading to further discussion and deliberation on issues. Once an active board member of a university told me that he feared that he his tenure might not be renewed because the vice chancellor thought that he ‘asked too many questions.’ True to his prediction, the said gentleman was promptly ‘retired’ from the board in its next meeting. An independent and empowered board is therefore a basic governance requirement for the success of a university.

Following from the board is the office of the ‘President,’ ‘Rector’ or the ‘Vice Chancellor,’ -- the effective head of the institution. He or she is the single most important person in the university and as the chief academic, administrative and academic officer carries the most direct influence. One doesn’t need to go into the details of the way in which vice chancellors are appointed in Pakistan, especially in the Punjab, as I have dealt with it at length earlier on these pages, but suffice to say that the procedure is extremely lopsided, bizarre and even silly.

In one province a centrally appointed committee makes appointment to all public sector universities, while in another a search committee is appointed for each vacancy but with little regard to the needs of the university itself or the expertise of the committee members. Worst of all, in all government appointed search committees there is no representative of the university where the appointment is going to be made and nor is an assessment done as to the particular requirements of the university where this person will go. It is as if the committee selects a person at random and then finds a university vacancy for them. A historian told me that he was offered the vice chancellorship of an engineering university even. If such is the callous way in which the heads of institutions are appointed, then there is little chance that either these people will be the right ones for the job or, more importantly, they will be able to do much once they are appointed. A vice chancellor also told me that he had not even visited the university he had been appointed to till after his selection -- so much for interest!

In the private sector, the process for the appointment of the head of institution is largely unclear. Some universities seem to be family run with the ‘owner’ of the university or his appointee, who practically works under him, as the head. At these ‘seth universities’ there is no attempt to even give a façade of a process and appointments are made clearly on connections and likes and dislikes. In other private universities, the appointment is made by a small group of people, who are usually close friends, and more often than not appoint their close friends to these positions. Only in a handful is there any process, or semblance of a merit-based appointment.

The process of appointment of the head of the institution in most private universities clearly shows that the main interest of the owners in these places is making money. They do not really care if it is a university even, as long as money is being made. And hence anyone who promises a good dividend on their investment is chosen. It is not hard to image the quality of teaching and research at these places then.

Therefore, if universities in Pakistan are to grow and produce world quality research and an informed citizenry, they must radically transform the manner in which the head of the institution is appointed. An assessment of the needs of the university is a sine qua non, after which a job description needs to be drawn up on its basis. Senior faculty members and administrators, who are not themselves vying for the position itself, should be included in such a deliberation, so that the qualifications and qualities of the type of person needed can be detailed. Then an international search committee should be formed with members chosen on the basis of what the university needs.

Also read: University governance in Pakistan-II

For example, if it is an engineering university, perhaps third of the search committee members should be top engineers in the world. Similarly, if the university is a general one, experts from different fields should be added to the committee, and so on. Furthermore, this process should not start when the term of a vice chancellor has come to an end, as is usually the case, but should begin at least a year beforehand so that there is adequate time for preparation and deliberation. Crucially campus visits and meetings with faculty and staff should form part of the process so that not only are the candidates informed of the particular needs of the university, but also the faculty and staff feel that they are a part of the process, and that it is being done in a transparent manner. Ideally the new person should be able to work with the outgoing vice chancellor for a few months before taking over so that a smooth transition can happen.

It is only when a well thought out, streamlined, and robust process for the appointment of heads of universities is made, that a particular university will have the leadership in place to realise its vision. Otherwise, it will be the case of the blind leading the blind.

To be continued