The state imposes high requirements on virtually all professions upon which the well-being of society and the effectiveness of public administration depend.

To become a judge, one must obtain a higher legal education, have relevant work experience, successfully pass qualification examinations and a competitive selection process, and then continuously improve one's professional knowledge. Similar requirements apply to prosecutors, attorneys, notaries, civil servants, auditors, diplomats, law enforcement officers, and representatives of many other professions.

This approach is only logical. The higher the level of responsibility, the higher the requirements for professional competence should be.

However, there is one public office whose decisions largely determine the present and future of the country, yet the constitutional requirements for candidates for this office in most democratic states remain minimal.

This refers to a Member of Parliament.

As a rule, eligibility to run in elections is limited to meeting basic constitutional requirements: attaining a specified age, holding citizenship of the state, and having permanently resided in its territory for a certain period.

This approach ensures that every citizen has the opportunity to exercise their passive electoral right and is one of the fundamental principles of a democratic state.

At the same time, however, an enormous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the deputy.

It is Parliament that adopts laws determining the state's development for many years to come, approves the state budget, participates in forming the highest bodies of state power, exercises parliamentary oversight, and makes decisions on matters of national importance.

It is the deputies who adopt laws regulating citizens' rights and freedoms, fiscal and tax policy, the operation of state bodies, the judicial and law enforcement systems, education, healthcare, social protection, defence, national security, and many other strategically vital areas.

This raises a legitimate question: are age, citizenship, and permanent residency alone sufficient for effectively exercising such extensive powers?

This question does not call democratic principles into question. On the contrary, it concerns the quality of public administration.

The modern deputy is no longer merely a representative of the people. Today, they are a legislator making decisions in a rapidly changing world.

Artificial intelligence, the digital economy, cybersecurity, global competition, climate change, international sanctions, demographic processes, new models of public governance – all of this demands a deep understanding of contemporary processes and the ability to make well-considered legislative decisions.

Can one debate the state budget without understanding the principles of public finance?

Can one adopt laws on digital transformation without any understanding of artificial intelligence, personal data protection, and cybersecurity?

Can one reform the judicial system without understanding the fundamentals of justice and constitutional oversight?

Can one make decisions on national security without a basic knowledge of international relations and geopolitics?

The answer seems obvious, as the 21st century imposes entirely different requirements on legislators than those of just a few decades ago.

At the same time, this is not about requiring every deputy to be simultaneously a lawyer, economist, doctor, engineer, or IT specialist. That would be impossible.

However, a modern legislator is obliged to understand the fundamentals of state functioning, to be able to analyse the consequences of decisions made, to work with expert opinions, and to assess the legal, economic, and social implications of each piece of draft legislation.

This, precisely, is the professional responsibility of a 21st-century deputy.

Public discourse often raises the issue of training already-elected deputies.

Undoubtedly, advanced training for parliamentarians is of great importance. Modern legislation develops so rapidly that continuous knowledge updating becomes a necessity for any member of the legislative branch.

However, it seems that the main question lies elsewhere.

When should the preparation of a future legislator begin?

In my view, the answer is obvious: before running for office.

Professional knowledge is most effective when it is acquired prior to the assumption of state powers.

We do not train a judge after their appointment to the bench.

We do not train a surgeon during an operation.

We do not train a pilot after their first solo flight.

In all professions involving a high degree of public responsibility, preparation precedes the performance of professional duties.

Why should legislative activity be an exception?

After receiving a parliamentary mandate, there is virtually no time left to master the basics.

From practically the first day, the deputy begins to perform their duties, participating in the review of draft laws, budget discussions, the work of committees and commissions, personnel appointments, parliamentary oversight, and decision-making on matters of national importance.

Therefore, preparation must precede the exercise of parliamentary powers.

At the same time, this is not about introducing an educational qualification or additional restrictions on passive electoral rights.

The constitutional right of every citizen to be elected must remain inviolable.

The issue is solely about creating a voluntary system of professional training for candidates for deputy (of the maslikhat, of parliament) that would allow anyone wishing to do so to acquire the necessary knowledge – prior to running for office – in public administration, law-making, the budget process, parliamentary procedures, parliamentary ethics, constitutional responsibility, and much more.

Agree, this approach does not restrict democracy. On the contrary, it makes popular representation more professional, responsible, and effective.

The next question arises: in what areas should a candidate for deputy in the 21st century be trained? First of all, in the fundamentals of the constitutional order and legislative activity.

However, preparation cannot be limited to that. A modern legislator requires knowledge in the fields of public administration, economics, the budget process, tax policy, international law, national security, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, public auditing, parliamentary ethics, anti-corruption policy, strategic planning, public communications, mediation, and so on.

Practical training should be an equally important part of the preparation.

The future deputy must be able to analyse draft laws, assess their regulatory impact, work with expert opinions, participate in modelling parliamentary activities, conduct professional debates, seek compromise solutions, and understand the long-term consequences of adopted laws.

The 21st-century legislator must possess not only the political support of voters but also the modern competencies needed to make sound governmental decisions.

Ultimately, it is professional training that makes it possible to translate the public's political trust into effective legislative activity.

International experience confirms the relevance of this approach. In many countries, special attention is paid to the professional development of parliamentarians. Newly elected deputies undergo adaptation programmes to parliamentary work, studying legislative procedures, the budget process, the fundamentals of parliamentary oversight, and the specific work of committees.

In the United Kingdom, new Members of Parliament undergo comprehensive induction programmes. In India, there is a specialised system for training parliamentarians. In Germany and France, educational and research centres contribute to the development of political cadres. In Singapore, the state has for decades systematically shaped future political leaders, with a particular focus on education, managerial experience, and the development of leadership qualities.

However, as a rule, this refers to training for already-elected parliamentarians or representatives of the talent pool.

It seems that the next stage in the development of modern parliamentarism could be a voluntary system of professional training specifically for candidates for deputy before they receive a parliamentary mandate.

Such a system would allow any citizen planning to run for office to acquire the necessary knowledge and practical skills in advance, without restricting their constitutional right to be elected.

It should be emphasised that this is not about introducing compulsory education, qualifying examinations, or any other additional conditions for participation in elections.

Democracy should not become a system of restrictions.

On the contrary, every citizen should have the opportunity to voluntarily prepare for the exercise of future powers.

That is why the most effective model appears to be an open educational programme accessible to all candidates, regardless of political views, party affiliation, profession, or prior work experience.

Such a programme could include the study of the fundamentals of constitutional law, the legislative process, public administration, economics, public finance, international relations, national security, digital technologies, parliamentary ethics, anti-corruption, strategic planning, public communications, mediation, and engagement with civil society.

An integral part of the preparation should be practical classes, such as modelling parliamentary sessions, drafting legislation, analysing regulatory impact, working with expert opinions, public debates, studying case law, and learning about best international standards of law-making.

Such a system would allow the future deputy to enter Parliament already prepared to perform their duties.

As a result, everyone would benefit. The state would gain a strong deputy corps. Parliament would ensure higher quality law-making. Society would receive more balanced and effective laws. And the deputies themselves would be able to focus not on learning the basics, but on solving the very tasks for which citizens entrusted them with their votes.

The constitutional model of development is aimed at strengthening the principles of the rule of law in a fair and competitive country.

The establishment of a voluntary system of professional training for future candidates for deputy is a pressing issue, as society is asking: exactly what kind of deputies are currently being put forward on party lists, and who will represent their voice in Parliament?

The organisational model for such training may vary and is a matter for further professional and public discussion. The main thing is to create conditions for voluntary and professional preparation of future candidates for deputy.

After all, when a voter goes to the polls, they entrust the deputy with the right to represent the interests of society and to participate in the adoption of laws that determine the country's development. Such trust presupposes not only public support but also readiness for the responsible exercise of the powers conferred.

Each deputy votes personally. Each vote becomes part of the law. Each law subsequently affects the lives of millions of people.

This is precisely why the preparation of a future legislator must begin not after receiving a parliamentary mandate, but long before citizens come to the polling stations.

Democracy answers the question: who has the right to represent the people?

Professional training answers the question: how effectively will this person be able to fulfil the trust placed in them?

These principles do not contradict each other.

On the contrary, they complement each other, ensuring a combination of open democratic elections and a high level of professional readiness among future parliamentarians.

In the 21st century, the question is no longer only about who will receive the mandate of popular trust, but also about how professionally that person will be prepared to exercise legislative powers.

This, in my view, is one of the promising directions for the further development of modern parliamentarism.

Zulfiya BAKI,

Judge of Court No. 2 of the Almalinsky District

of Almaty, Master of Laws, Legal Expert