A few months ago, there was public outrage after it transpired that President Nicos Christodoulides had appointed as member of the public service commission a man who had a university degree that was fake. There was a similar case under the previous administration, while more recently the appointment of 19-year-old as an advisor at the deputy ministry of tourism was rescinded on the grounds that she did not have a university degree.
A couple of days ago, the audit office issued an announcement informing the government that it should terminate the services of four advisors (two working for the president and two at the deputy ministry of shipping) because they had degrees from universities that were not recognised by the state body which ratified degrees from foreign universities. In its statement, the audit office added that when the law governing the appointment of advisors is approved potential appointees would have to present a degree before taking up a post.
The university degree requirement plays a big role in the civil service, in which it is a requirement for promotion above a certain pay-scale. This was probably imposed in order to eliminate the favouritism that was rampant in the early years of the Republic, but now that everyone has a degree it does not serve its purpose. Favouritism in the civil service remains, and the audit office was superficial in asserting in its statement that possessing a degree was a meritocratic criterion for staffing the civil service.
In a truly meritocratic system the lack of a university degree should not be an obstacle to the rise of any good employee to the very top. The assumption that a degree holder would be a better civil servant than a school leaver is beyond idiotic. On what scientific data is the assumption that a person with a marketing or media studies degree makes a better manager in a bureaucracy than someone with a school leaving certificate? A degree is no guarantee that someone is intelligent, hard-working, productive, honest and takes initiative.
If there was a reliable and honest job evaluation system in the civil service, instead of every worker automatically being given top marks for work performance, there would be no need for the degree criterion. Good and capable workers, without a university degree, would be eligible to rise to the top of the civil service, instead of being barred from the higher position, as is the case under the current ‘degree’ regime.
The same should apply to the people the president or ministers choose as advisors. Why must they be degree-holders to be eligible for appointment, when they may have valuable skills and capabilities that a university graduate does not have? This is not only unjustified favouritism towards degree-holders, but it makes a mockery of the boast that the state is as an equal opportunities employer.
