Should ministers have domain expertise? Gen Z protests revive an old debate

GoI acknowledged the seriousness of concerns aired recently by Gen Z protests by transferring the education secretary, removing 47 National Testing Agency (NTA) officials, and accepting education minister Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation. The appointment of Pralhad Joshi as Pradhan's successor sparked discussion, since he has neither academic qualifications nor professional experience in the sector. While Joshi is not unique in this respect, the episode revived a debate on whether ministers should possess qualifications or professional experience relevant to their portfolios.

This question deserves closer attention. An examination of the Modi government shows that only about 1/4th of its 71 ministers have academic qualifications or significant professional experience broadly aligned with their portfolios. Only 9 have backgrounds that closely match the ministries they head, with a similar number among ministers of state.

Also read: Dharmendra Pradhan breaks silence on exit, says Gen Z was ‘misled’ during NEET protests


All political parties suffer from the malaise of ignoring the need for high-quality governance. During the 2 terms of the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government, only about 1/5th ministers had qualifications or professional experience related to their portfolios. A similar trend is visible across most state governments.

Education provides a striking example. Of the 5 ministers who have headed the Union education ministry since 2014, none has had a career in teaching, educational administration or academic research. In contrast, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Humayun Kabir and Murli Manohar Joshi held the education portfolio in earlier governments.

Among the states, only 4 - Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Assam and West Bengal - have education ministers with professional backgrounds in education. Even the parliamentary standing committee on education has relatively few members with substantial academic or educational experience.

By contrast, several other democracies make greater use of subject specialists, with such appointments accounting for as much as 70% of ministerial positions. In Britain, the shadow cabinet allows opposition politicians to develop expertise in specific policy areas while scrutinising the corresponding government departments. Although political considerations continue to influence ministerial appointments, the system encourages greater policy specialisation and creates a pool of ministers-in-waiting with experience in particular sectors.

Consequences of a mismatch between portfolios and professional backgrounds should not be underestimated. Ministers without relevant expertise are more likely to depend on civil servants for policy formulation and implementation. Since IAS officers are generalists, this can result in both the political and administrative leadership of a ministry lacking deep domain knowledge.

Cabinets are composed to reflect regional, caste, community and coalition interests. PMs also tend to entrust key portfolios such as home, finance and defence to trusted political colleagues who share their strategic outlook. Political compulsions limit the scope for merit-based portfolio allocation.

Also read: From placards to punchlines: How Gen Z turned the CJP protest into a social media movement



Yet, appointments based on professional expertise have often won broad public approval. P V Narasimha Rao's decision to appoint economist Manmohan Singh as finance minister is regarded as one of the most consequential ministerial appointments in independent India. More recently, Narendra Modi's choice of S Jaishankar, a career diplomat with experience of working in the US and China, as foreign minister was similarly welcomed.

If GoI is serious about drawing lessons from the Gen Z movement, it should consider whether ministers' academic qualifications and professional experience are better aligned with the responsibilities they are asked to discharge.

Strengthening this alignment won't eliminate the need for political judgement. But it could improve the quality of decision-making and reduce excessive dependence on the bureaucracy. A strong political mandate is meant to be used to bring about major reforms, even if it means ruffling a few feathers.

The writer was ToI's Beijing correspondent