Should formal education be made compulsory for leaders & ministers?

INeeDtoGetIn

Unless you make it mandatory, nobody would care to do it. Only when it's mandatory, would it become an election issue. Only then would leaders work to acquire the mandatory minimum qualifications.

You can declare that it would be mandatory after after 5 years for the lower rungs and 10 years for the higher legislature. Leaders can utilise the time to read up and acquire the minimum qualifications. Enforce it sternly after that. Nitty gritties of the implementation are in no way reasons to dump a necessary step.

Your argument is based on two assumptions.

1. Education , ethics, and morality can be measured and checked in an examination.
2. Only education can lead to ethical behaviour.

By seeing the UPSC ethics paper, you should know noone can check character, it is not possible.

Secondly, what about corrupt bureaucrats, white collar crime etc? All of them are educated, but still corrupt?
People such as Einstein, Lincon, Churchill were all bad at school, and dropped out, yet noone can question their intelligence. Intelligence is not equated to education. Esp. in a system such as India's where rote learning is emphasised.


And what about Modi, he is illiterate, and yet the prime minister. Modi bhakts will argue that he is the greatest leader of this generation.

Etat

Unless you make it mandatory, nobody would care to do it. Only when it's mandatory, would it become an election issue. Only then would leaders work to acquire the mandatory minimum qualifications.

You can declare that it would be mandatory after after 5 years for the lower rungs and 10 years for the higher legislature. Leaders can utilise the time to read up and acquire the minimum qualifications. Enforce it sternly after that. Nitty gritties of the implementation are in no way reasons to dump a necessary step.

Your argument is based on two assumptions.

1. Education , ethics, and morality can be measured and checked in an examination.
2. Only education can lead to ethical behaviour.

By seeing the UPSC ethics paper, you should know noone can check character, it is not possible.

Secondly, what about corrupt bureaucrats, white collar crime etc? All of them are educated, but still corrupt?
People such as Einstein, Lincon, Churchill were all bad at school, and dropped out, yet noone can question their intelligence. Intelligence is not equated to education. Esp. in a system such as India's where rote learning is emphasised.

I make no such assumptions. On the contrary, if a leader engages in corruption after having specifically read about ethics, then they have no defense that they didn't realise the issue.

@modernashoka

1. Solved by deferred enforcement!
2. Not directly relevant
3. That's not a good idea. Criminal would start demanding.
4. That's a very fatalistic argument. Not all educated people are corrupt either.
5. We cannot stop working because of fears
6. UPSC mains syllabus is a good start
7. That's just absurd and specious
8. British raj redux?
9. He barely showed up at the RS. Hitting sixes and legislation are very different ballgames.You can't compare apples to oranges.

Most of the opposition to this is either specious or over-exaggerations, or over-generalisations.

Priyanka_9

When we talk of minimum educational qualifications, we wish that our country be run by well informed, responsible and efficient politicians. Secondly if you put such criteria, education will also be promoted (ex. Women education in case they want to contest election in future).

But whether it's a genuine or fake degree it only ensures literacy. Education means much more that that and sometimes the informal experience of person leads him to become more aware and responsible leader. (Ex. Our freedom fighters)

So in the short run why not focus more on training of selected politicians rather than qualifications ensuring that these trainings are not just for namesake and make them well aware of the problems at hand and their duties.
In the long run we can have a prescribed qualification for politicians and this goal be simultaneously tied with reducing illiteracy in the country. Such an announcement well ahead of time will encourage people to pursue degrees and will not deprive the current illiterate lot from contesting elections.

pizza

@Neyawn
Looking at the current scenario of literacy reach, if we are up for some quick changes, I think mandatory educational qualification at this juncture is not a feasible option. Let them get elected first and then undergo mandatory training instead,

1.We need training infrastructure for our representatives.
2. I think we should choose representatives say, two years(just saying, timeframe needs to be researched) before they join the office, so that they can undergo training.
3. They should be thoroughly trained in all the aspects that a parliamentarian requires to function at his peak.
4. At the end of the training session, Conduct debates in public view, so that people know whether they did indeed learn anything.
5. Let them also undergo various attachments to actually assess the ground conditions properly. They will get to know the problems of an army soldier when they spend a night on the border. They will also learn the much required discipline.

In short, let us train the representatives for sometime and see if there can be any good outcomes. Afterall, running a country is not such an easy job. I think its worth giving it a try.

ps, training can also be an opportunity to shunt their ego and make them realize that they are just here to legislate for the next five years and not rule the country.

mah_05

Minimum level of educational qualifications should be there but we do not have 100 percent literacy rate so:

- It should only be made mandatory for MPs and MLAs first then only for local level
- If it is made mandatory for local level then around 30 percent rural population would not be able to contest elections which is higher for women, SC/ST and Other Backward Classes
- Educated MPs and MLAs do not mean that they would work towards betterment, they ought to do more corruption by knowing the system through their education and knowledge so along with the education, they should have right intent to represent people and work towards their aspirations. I am not suggesting that educated MPs would be corrupt but intention to serve people should be must before the education as they have assistance of bureaucrats
- Once MPs know the aspiration of the people whom they are representing they can ask bureaucrats to formulate such policies and for knowing the aspiration of the people, education is neither sufficient nor necessary
- Rajasthan government has introduced it but has half of the women population illiterate which would lead to arrange fake certificate and rubber stamp women legislatures
- Planning at local level would not get hampered in the absence of education as there are examples in Rajasthan itself where uneducated Sarpanches have done lot better than educated one
- So make mandatory for MPs, MLAs and let them improve educational level, automatically educated people would enter into politics
- If it is made mandatory at present at all level then it would become elite affair which is not good for our democracy as more than half of the population in some states would be devoid to contest elections

SoTC

I feel education should be the bare minimum for the politicians to be able to contest elections. Others have pointed out how they are supposed to be representatives of the people and therefore, it is alright if they aren't educated. To that, I say - just look at scores of uneducated parents who do not value education as an important part of their children's lives. Uneducated leaders means that they will not stress on education in their policies. No emphasis on education means yet more uneducated people. More uneducated people mean less benefit for the nation - economy, administration, etc. It is upto the politician to guide the nation's development, but if he himself isn't aware..

Yes, I know that a lot of people would be disqualified immediately if this measure is implemented. But, the people of today are more aware compared to the past. The people want development - that is the only reason Modi came to power. The moment they tried to ride that wave of success in Delhi and Bihar, they paid the price for all the negative publicity they'd earned through their religious shenanigans, chest thumping and bravado. And what is the cornerstone of development? Education.


Its surely not just a coincidence that we've had so many uneducated politicians in the past, and that today basic, primary education is still an issue for the majority of the population.



Also, reading about social sciences, geography etc. certainly won't give us moral values. But it wrong still to think that certain individuals are blessed with and the others aren't. It depends on the way we're raised. I'm sure, all things considered, an educated parent will be much better at providing a future for and empowering his child than an uneducated one. The same goes for a politician and the people he represents. I'd take an educated politician with a forward thinking mind than uneducated politician with a forward thinking mind. All other things being equal, wouldn't you?

SoTC

Honestly, when I'd just started preparing, I thought that it was the politicians who needed to give this exam more than the bureaucrats.

Tesla

The Supreme Court has already declared this ordinance to be valid and upholding the Fundamental Rights. Taking this debate then, out of the purview of its constitutional validity and whether it violates the Right to Equality or not etc, I'm highlighting some issues which may still arise from an ethical standpoint, if not from a legal one:-

1. Are we at that stage yet? With more than 26% of our population still completely illiterate, will the step of introducing minimum qualifications act towards improving governance or will it covertly and implicitly work towards excluding a large electorate from contesting elections?

2. Introducing such reforms at the grassroots stage acts in violation to the very concept of grassroots democracy itself. Inherent within the concept of grassroots democracy is the fundamental principle of participation and inclusion.

3. Hypothetically, what is the extent to which we, as a nation, are willing to go in order to usher in governance reforms? Can this be also argued that in future, the right to vote is also curtailed in a similar manner where age criteria, along with a minimum educational qualification determines the eligibility to cast a vote? Certainly the right to vote is NOT a fundamental right, it is a mere constitutional right which can be amended. Will this step be accepted too, in hopes of better governance? If not, then why this one?

4. The root cause of inefficiency in governance system is corruption and not illiteracy per say. And corruption is not at all correlated to the education of a person. An educated grassroots governance structure is no less likely to indulge in corruption than an educated one. Eliminating corruption and ensuring better vigilance and anti-corruption measures should be given priority to usher in governance reforms than introducing any such big bang reforms which can have unintended consequences like exclusion of a large electorate from contesting elections.

I completely support having minimum educational qualification for politicians. Let us take point by point ..

Argument:
Are we at that stage yet? With more than 26% of our population still completely illiterate, will the step of introducing minimum qualifications act towards improving governance or will it covertly and implicitly work towards excluding a large electorate from contesting elections?

My view:
I agree partially. But, If literacy is 100%, there is no need for this requirement at all. We are in better position now compared to what we were at the time of independence.

Argument:
Introducing such reforms at the grass roots stage acts in violation to the very concept of grassroots democracy itself. Inherent within the concept of grass roots democracy is the fundamental principle of participation and inclusion.

My view: I do not think it is violation of grassroot democracy. That rule is already bent in terms of age, reservation etc. requirements. For example why can't a citizen of 18 years of age contest in the election? Is this not violation of his/her right granted by democracy? My point is democracy promises any citizen can be a contestant provided some basic qualifications are met. It is up to the contestant's capacity to be qualified for the position. As you know, we are not setting PG level education requirement per say. If the candidate is very much interested to serve the people, he/she has the option of studying/writing exams in open schooling/university.

Argument:
The root cause of inefficiency in governance system is corruption and not illiteracy per say. And corruption is not at all correlated to the education of a person. An educated grassroots governance structure is no less likely to indulge in corruption than an educated one. Eliminating corruption and ensuring better vigilance and anti-corruption measures should be given priority to usher in governance reforms than introducing any such big bang reforms which can have unintended consequences like exclusion of a large electorate from contesting elections

My view: In modern world, administration and leadership demand more technical knowledge of various sectors such as economy, science, technology, engineering, health, biotechnology etc. The primary job of legislatures is to make laws, for example, Can an illiterate member of parliament understand Biodiversity act or TRAI act, let alone making laws on those topics. Imagine if he/she becomes minister? Should all citizens suffer just to ascertain rights of very few? Education may not eliminate corruption but certainly gives hope for efficiency.

That being said, we have to implement this in top down approach i.e. first at parliament level and then at state level and finally local govt level.

SoTC

One more point to make:
A basic reading of modern history tells us that it was only when educated readers spread some awareness amongst the masses that we were able to recognise how bad the British actually were for India(from around 1858-1905). It was this kind of leader that yet again took out freedom movement to the next level when the moderates' methods of protest didn't yield the desired results. Going even further, Nehru, Gandhi, Ambedkar - all were highly educated, and were thus able to adequately rationalise and formulate strategies for our struggle. Later on, our constitution(thought of highly around the world because of its meticulous construction) was formulated by well read, highly educated people.

Bottom line - we absolutely need educated leaders. Not somebody who's mind is mired in things below his station as a politician. Or worse yet, somebody who cannot comprehend the responsibility bestowed upon him as a leader of the people, and only sees getting elected as an end goal, not the means to create something positive for the people. Exceptions are always possible - an uneducated leader might do a world of good for his people. But I think if you'd ask the leader himself if he wished he were educated, I'm sure he wouldn't say no

sidsa

Formal education is not equal to wisdom or leadership required by leaders. While saying this some formal education like matriculation helps in governance and administration. Moreover looking at history we see that great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr. King, Pt. Nehru, Dr. Ambedkar all have been highly educated and through formal education they were able to form and articulate their idea cogently to masses and raising their awareness.

However making it mandatory will have exclusionary effect on democracy of India. Case in point Rajasthan and Haryana. In In Rajasthan lot of candidates (primarily upper caste) won unopposed, moreover t had exclusionary effect on most vulnerable community of backward, SC and ST women. NGO and prominent activist like Aruna Roy are against such mandatory requirements.

Hence if mandatory educational qualification is needed then it should be done with adequate time lag of 10 years to allow candidates who don't have formal certificates to obtain one.