Instances are plenty where the most academically qualified politicians have also failed to deliver. There cannot be a better example in the current political scenario than Dr. Manmohan Singh, the scholastic politician, who had to wait for Sonia Gandhi’s nod on vital issues. Also, that Sonia Gandhi can never claim to know most of Singh’s academic credentials, yet commanded respect from the latter. Does it not connote the “less educated” can wield more power than the “more educated”?
A politician cannot be measured by the “qualification”, but the quality, skills and integrity s/he possesses. Emitting the answer in the exams may fetch marks. Application of education in life is altogether different, where education and intelligence often don’t go together. Credibility and honesty are not friendly epithets in politics.
A minister mainly seeks advice from experts and tries to fulfill people’s needs and expectations. As for "degrees", it is common knowledge that our “academic” qualifications have limited job value. Not to be a graduate is not a crime. When educated people can use their “education” and evil brain to subvert the system and extort money, hide their huge crimes and get away with them, seeking a mandatory need for education only slaps a cruel joke. We need dedicated and patriotic persons, not qualified cronies. Unfortunately, there is no such “degree” bestowed for exhibiting these qualities. This appears to be a non-issue in our country. Many ministers around the world are not qualified for the ministerial positions they hold, but can prove outstanding because of their unbiased outlook.
Constitutional demerit
The fault lies with the Constitution-makers and the party who ruled India for over 60 years. Why the relevant article was not amended to specify the qualifications of the ministers and elected members? It is the demerit of our Constitution that it does not require any qualification for politicians. We, as a country, are always lagging behind in primary education. The other democratic countries give the right to vote and elected only those who attained certain qualification. In India, we overlooked it. The result is we are good in higher education, but at primary level we are struggling to attain literacy.
Can we judge the unschooled Thomas Alva Edison through his educational qualification? The first American President George Washington did not hold any degree. Can we question the ability of Bill Gates? On the contrary, highly educated people like Manmohan Singh have proved that education is not a guarantee for good governance and leadership. Certification does not necessarily makes a person educated. It is something one learns on a daily basis.
Literacy for leadership quality
Leadership quality is vital to be a good politician, which means you need to take decisions, empathise with the people and have a vision for the future and ready to handle unforeseen calamities and disasters. None of those things are taught at school or college. Literacy is necessary, but not a degree. Abraham Lincoln never had a full year of schooling and one cannot deny he was an amazing leader.
Logic also demands explanation for the other side. While a manager is appointed with minimum MBA qualification to run a small firm, why our politicians should be allowed to run such a big country without any minimum qualification? Chartered Accountants, doctors, architects etc. have to study and train for their chosen profession in order to minimise mistakes, malpractices and unethical decisions and so on. For running public office positions, it is only sane to introduce a minimum set of subjects like communications, economics, management, political science etc.
In developing democracies, bulk of the population may not only be uneducated and ill-informed, but illiterate, and it is easy to fall into the trap of half-truths and half-baked ideas sold to them by some unlettered but charismatic dumbos. On the other hand, the relevant qualification for the selection of Indian cricket team is not attainment of degree, but the ability to do well. Here insisting on educational qualification is ridiculous.
Politicians need to know the pulse of the society and the standing of the country in international stage. It is vital for them to ask the right questions in the parliament. They must understand the gravity of the problem and the strategy that should be adopted to mitigate the problem. All these warrant an analytical mind. Though there are bureaucrats, it is always better to have an intellectual leader rather than one who is heavily dependent on the former.
Designing a relevant curriculum
Why a politician, prior to taking office, should not be asked to take a basic education test? If they fail, they should undergo the basic education and repeat the test. If the politician does not have basic idea of finance, economics, history, political science, why would anyone in the society want that person representing them? The nation’s destiny and the fate of the people are determined to a fair extent by the politicians. For anything to be accomplished, it is important that is done according to established procedure, and that takes some education, which is a benefit to a politician both in getting elected and in doing his job.
A separate curriculum must be designed that would ensure a politician to think, reason and analyse. After all, an educated person can look at a certain issue from various perspectives.
If politicians become statesmen, then the formalities and certifications become a matter of irrelevance, hypothetical though.
=====
No comments:
Post a Comment