So, a BA political science or some such stuff makes you a better politician. This preposterous idea, unfortunately promoted by some
less-than-bright politicians, is only an indication of our fascination for academic degrees
, more so if they're from foreign universities. It is unlikely to qualitatively transform public life in this country.
The idea of an academic degree as a basic qualification to enter a profession is essentially based on two premises. One, the presumption that the degree is an indication that the degree-holder has learned a particular subject or is trained in a certain trade. Two, it serves as a criterion to restrict admission to a profession. Over the years, we have reduced the idea of schooling or learning to spending a certain number of years in a college or a university. A degree today is just a tool to eliminate potential job seekers. Studies
show that our MPs are more educated than ever before. There are more postgraduates and PhDs in Lok Sabha today than in previous Houses. But is the quality of debates in Parliament better than before? Some of our finest politicians, for example former Tamil Nadu chief minister K Kamaraj, didn't go to university. They learned on the job.
Of course, there is no harm if a politician has a university degree. That, however, can't be made a basic criterion for recruitment to political parties or participation in public life. The stress ought to be on attitude and aptitude. Being sensitive to public issues and willingness to devote time for public causes have to be the primary qualifications for one to be a politician. He must know to make pragmatic and ethical choices in public policy debates. Academic qualifications do not ensure that a prospective politician will have such abilities or qualities.
Rather than promote MBAs in political management and so on, let parties train their workers in the business of politics. Politics is a practical matter, and can be learned only through directly engaging in this craft.
less-than-bright politicians, is only an indication of our fascination for academic degrees
, more so if they're from foreign universities. It is unlikely to qualitatively transform public life in this country.
The idea of an academic degree as a basic qualification to enter a profession is essentially based on two premises. One, the presumption that the degree is an indication that the degree-holder has learned a particular subject or is trained in a certain trade. Two, it serves as a criterion to restrict admission to a profession. Over the years, we have reduced the idea of schooling or learning to spending a certain number of years in a college or a university. A degree today is just a tool to eliminate potential job seekers. Studies
show that our MPs are more educated than ever before. There are more postgraduates and PhDs in Lok Sabha today than in previous Houses. But is the quality of debates in Parliament better than before? Some of our finest politicians, for example former Tamil Nadu chief minister K Kamaraj, didn't go to university. They learned on the job.
Of course, there is no harm if a politician has a university degree. That, however, can't be made a basic criterion for recruitment to political parties or participation in public life. The stress ought to be on attitude and aptitude. Being sensitive to public issues and willingness to devote time for public causes have to be the primary qualifications for one to be a politician. He must know to make pragmatic and ethical choices in public policy debates. Academic qualifications do not ensure that a prospective politician will have such abilities or qualities.
Rather than promote MBAs in political management and so on, let parties train their workers in the business of politics. Politics is a practical matter, and can be learned only through directly engaging in this craft.
No comments:
Post a Comment