How educated and competent our politicians are, especially Parliamentarians, is a question that has been popping up in the national discourse on political reforms for years, if not decades. Although the debate on whether educational qualifications would necessarily translate into occupational competence is still ongoing, Sri Lanka seems to have reached a point where it is assigning some sort of value to the educational and professional qualifications of politicians.

This week, it was reported that, taking into account the importance of MPs and Government officials being versed in economics and trade-related activities in order to make informed decisions in the formulation and implementation of national policies, the Cabinet of Ministers had approved the establishment of the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and Trade. According to Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Bandula Gunawardana, in a context where Parliament is directly involved with the management of public finances, it is essential that all MPs and senior State officials are equipped with knowledge in economics and trade.

This is certainly a welcome move, which could be expected to contribute to future political reforms through making politicians more responsible and competent in fulfilling their duties. Questions about politicians’ educational qualifications or knowledge stem largely from their performance, especially with regard to the decisions that they make as public representatives. In fact, given the damage caused by short-sighted or erroneous political decisions – some of which even contributed to the ongoing economic crisis, and which are said to have been made in good faith but apparently with poor judgement – Sri Lankans have ample reasons to demand the imporvement of politicians’ performance, and the political authority has an obligation to take steps towards this.

It is true that educational qualifications or knowledge alone do not determine politicians’ competence or performance. In fact, Sri Lanka has seen many instances of decisions that deteriorated the country’s economic situation being supported and defended by those with exceptional educational qualifications. However, some sort of formal educational qualification or demonstrable knowledge could definitely prove beneficial to the people. On the one hand, it could help the people make better decisions in electing their representatives, and on the other hand, it could help politicians make somewhat sensible, scientific decisions. Most importantly, this decision could help garner the trust of the international community by highlighting that crisis-affected Sri Lanka is equipping its lawmakers with economics and trade-related knowledge, and that therefore economically sensible decisions can be expected to some extent. Such trust could be beneficial in the long run.

However, the implementation of this programme cannot be expected to be a smooth or fast process. Sri Lanka’s Parliament has a considerable number of elderly MPs who are unlikely to willingly participate in these courses, as well as MPs who have not excelled in formal education, who may therefore not be in a position to grasp advanced knowledge on economics. In this context, providing economics and trade-related knowledge to MPs is not an endeavour that can commence right away. The Government should conduct an assessment of the MPs’ willingness and ability to learn, and provide tailor-made courses for individual MPs or groups of MPs. Either way, this is not a programme that should be forgotten about a few months after its commencement, because in the coming few years, MPs will be required to make a large number of difficult economic and trade-related decisions.

In a context where MPs are extremely hesitant to retire in order to make space for more educated replacements, the least they can do is willingly participate in this programme, and acquire the knowledge that will prove essential to the country’s recovery.