A qualification is defined by Collins Dictionary as the act of having passed an examination.  In an academic sense, this generally refers to a specific test allowing an individual to demonstrate their understanding of or the ability to apply skills in a specific field.  In this sense, qualifications are gained from passage through an educational process.

Such educational processes are considered by the United Nations as a basic Human Right, and as such, most societies in which we live generally seek to ensure that education is available to all.  This involves the provision of basic schooling for all, combined with the opportunity for advanced training in a multitude of disciplines.  This education is delivered by teachers trained in the education of students, and is supported by a system of examinations; the intent of which is (I presume) to validate the educational process that has been undertaken, via the provision of a certificate: a proof if you will of the fact that a student has demonstrated sufficient understanding of the subject at hand.

All well and good one might think – however what purpose does any of this serve if these certificates or qualifications are not required for any particular job?  Are qualifications merely nice to have for the individual in question, or should they be recognised by others as the demonstration of an understanding or a set of skills for a particular field of interest?  Indeed, are such (traditional) educational qualifications the only entry requirements to employment, or should further criteria be added to the list; perhaps such as personality or morality?

Many employees are required by their employers to demonstrate their skills via such qualifications in order to be considered eligible for a position – yet this is not so for all roles (or perhaps, simply not so for all candidates…).  In addition to any educational qualifications, it is also usual to find that certain behaviours can be expected from employees in order to ensure continued employment – typically these centre on established norms of behaviour.

It can be seen from recent events however, that there are certain circumstances under which neither educational nor behavioural standards are applied to the consideration of a candidate for employment – I cite the very recent example of the appointment of the former Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbot as an advisor to the UK Board of Trade.

Purely in terms of educational qualifications, Tony Abbot has an extensive record, which includes both a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, although his experience of Trade seems limited to his time as Prime Minister where his government signed several Free Trade Deals with other nations.   Other appointees such as Patricia Hewitt have even less educational qualifications (only a Bachelor of English Literature) – although Patricia Hewitt did serve as the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for 4 years.   It is not clear from a cursory examination of these two candidates then what the criteria are for the role of Advisor on the Board of Trade.

In terms of the more intangible qualifications – behavioural norms, Tony Abbot seems not to possess many of what might be considered normal, being labelled by many as a misogynist, a homophobe and climate change denier.

This is by no means the only example of positions being appointed to those whose qualifications are not immediately clear – this summer Boris Johnson’s government appointed a number of Peers of the Realm; including athletes (Ian Botham – Cricketer) and newspaper owners (Evgeny Lebedev).  Just quite how having played cricket for several years or how being the owner of a newspaper qualifies one for government is beyond me!

It may seem to the cynic, that the only ‘qualification’ needed to be appointed to such roles is to be in favour with the current government – yet surely this is no way to ensure the transparency and viability of a government?  If companies of every level see the value in setting criteria for eligibility for positions, how can it continue to be tolerated that the highest form of organisation in a society – its government – not have such?

The lack of criteria effectively allows any government a free reign to employ or appoint whomsoever they wish to any position – regardless of suitability for the role.

On a very basic level, this practice effectively renders both educational qualifications and norms of behaviour completely worthless.  The example being set by government is that you do not need to work hard in school in order to succeed, you do not need to be an expert in your field or indeed have any direct training or experience in order to be appointed.  What then is the point of studying for years to achieve a qualification if an appointment can be made without reference to such qualifications?

How can society expect to combat the lies and misinformation that pervades both traditional and social media, when we allow untrained individuals to hold positions of responsibility?  How can society ever hope to hold faith in ‘experts’ if the positions in their field are held by inexperienced people?  How can anyone hope to have a government that can manage the complex issues faced by a society when it employs people who are not qualified for the job?

I have no idea (beyond Wikipedia) whether or not Tony Abbot has the training or expertise to work on the UK Board of Trade, and the impression I have of his character suggests that he certainly doesn’t have the behavioural norms.  Yet, in the absence of agreed and published criteria for the role, I have no empirical way of establishing the case either way.

This issue didn’t start with Tony Abbot, and it will not end with him: we need to demand that the system be changed to respect the idea that qualifications should be respected and sought – for all jobs.