Should there be professional qualifications to hold office?

[Drooling Iguana]

Many professions require certain licenses, degrees and other qualifications to perform. For instance, no matter how much an applicant for a doctor's job impresses his or her interviewer, he/she isn't legally able to practice medicine unless he/she has obtained an M.D. and the appropriate licenses. Currently in order to be elected to public office in many areas a candidate only needs to get a sufficient number of votes, despite the fact that in some cases the consequences of a screw-up on their part would be far worse than what even the most incompetent of doctors could manage. Should certain degrees, licenses or other qualifications be required before a potential candidate for public office is eligible to run?

[The Romulan Republic]

No. Who would determine the criteria? It seems way too open to the potential for abuse. Political rights and participation of this short should be as open as possible.

[Sidewinder]

No. Who would determine the criteria? It seems way too open to the potential for abuse.

Indeed. Political theorists have struggled with this question for millenia. Should it be lineage (of the nobility)? Genetics (race)? Wealth? Morality (religious beliefs)? Intelligence... in what areas? Education... in what fields?

Please note higher IQs and greater education does NOT guarantee a person will be an effective political leader.

[Patrick Degan]

Many professions require certain licenses, degrees and other qualifications to perform. For instance, no matter how much an applicant for a doctor's job impresses his or her interviewer, he/she isn't legally able to practice medicine unless he/she has obtained an M.D. and the appropriate licenses. Currently in order to be elected to public office in many areas a candidate only needs to get a sufficient number of votes, despite the fact that in some cases the consequences of a screw-up on their part would be far worse than what even the most incompetent of doctors could manage. Should certain degrees, licenses or other qualifications be required before a potential candidate for public office is eligible to run?

Other than the constitutional requirements which must set an electoral standard, the answer has to be no. Realising that this keeps the way to office open to nutbars like Jim Inhofe, it has to be kept in mind that a degree in anything is not necessarily a guarantee of present knowledge or intellectual ability, but merely evidence of having been taught something at some time in the past. And it is no guarantee against dogmatism. Newt Gingrich has degrees in law and history, but essentially remains Austrian School in his economic policy thinking and certainly demonstrated himself to be one of the most viciously partisan creatures to ever hold a seat in the House of Representatives.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If you are going to have a qualification, not all degrees are equal. A lot of the problem today is that there are little meaningful qualifications. We've got an overabundance of lawers and history majors and political science majors. Legislators should have some sort of technical expertise in the field they are going to discuss or engage in a committee.

It's true that someone intelligent or with a certain degree is not more likely to be beneficent, but a certain level of intelligence and certain types of critical-thinking degrees are going to allow greater potential for rational, intelligent choices. They still need to be kept under some limitation. People with certain degrees correspond to higher intelligent and critical thinking skills, and both of the latter make competent decisions more likely.

We ought to have more scientists, engineers in public office relating to said types of decisions. It could likely eliminate many problems of stupid policy.

[ray245]

If you are going to have a qualification, not all degrees are equal. A lot of the problem today is that there are little meaningful qualifications. We've got an overabundance of lawers and history majors and political science majors. Legislators should have some sort of technical expertise in the field they are going to discuss or engage in a committee.

It's true that someone intelligent or with a certain degree is not more likely to be beneficent, but a certain level of intelligence and certain types of critical-thinking degrees are going to allow greater potential for rational, intelligent choices. They still need to be kept under some limitation. People with certain degrees correspond to higher intelligent and critical thinking skills, and both of the latter make competent decisions more likely.

We ought to have more scientists, engineers in public office relating to said types of decisions. It could likely eliminate many problems of stupid policy.

Knowing about what is an wise choice and implementing it as a public policy is two different thing. The Engineers or scientist in question must be a good manager as well.

A national leader without the ability to rally supporters will never be an effective leader.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Obviously, you need to have some sort of skill with working with others. But there are other potential problems. Politics is more complicated than merely working alone.

Also, no one profession would be an expert on a specific content area, so that's a problem. An engineer might know nothing about economics or ecology in the first place, thus wouldn't even be a suitable technocrat. The current system wouldn't mesh with such a qualification scheme.

And yes, it is no guarantee that they will be competent in making policy in unrelated fields. After all, Hoover was an Engineer. They aren't supermen. I am still inclined to think that more intelligent people with certain types of degrees have better critical thinking skills, which are desirable in leaders. Even if it's not a practical application.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting that politicians are not required to obey any kind of ethical code whatsoever. Doctors, engineers, even lawyers are expected to follow certain ethical codes, and these may even be formalized so that you can be put through a hearing for violating those codes (and no, none of those codes address the issue of getting blowjobs from interns; these are professional ethics codes).

Rather than expecting some kind of professional qualifications, I think we would be better served by having a formalized ethics code for politicians, which they can be impeached for violating. It's ridiculous that we have to hear people on TV saying that what someone did was legal, even if it was unethical. We know that there is no ethical requirement to be a politician, but that's really rubbing it in your face. Why not change it?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Maybe they could adopt the professional organization standards from the requisite disciplines and then be held accountable to them, in part through those agencies as watchdogs.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It's true that someone intelligent or with a certain degree is not more likely to be beneficent, but a certain level of intelligence and certain types of critical-thinking degrees are going to allow greater potential for rational, intelligent choices. They still need to be kept under some limitation. People with certain degrees correspond to higher intelligent and critical thinking skills, and both of the latter make competent decisions more likely.

We ought to have more scientists, engineers in public office relating to said types of decisions. It could likely eliminate many problems of stupid policy.

Evidence?

[Darth Wong]

Don't be stupid. The difficulty of certain types of education means that the lower-intelligence subset of the population simply won't be able to acquire them, at least not from a reputable school.

This is like saying that you don't believe there's any connection between intelligence and the ability to do calculus. There may be a wide range of intelligence among people who can do calculus, but stupid people simply can't do it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Evidence?

My reasoning is that a maths and engineering degrees are exceptionally difficult, which requires high intelligence. These fields require critical thinking. Intelligence and critical thinking are qualities you generally want in decision-makers, no? Stupid people are already less prone to making rational, competent decisions than intelligent people. Someone who is intelligent though, might not have requisite training to hone his intelligence. Therefore, training matters. An engineering degree SHOULD provide good training in critical thinking: their entire function is the application of math, science to solve practical problems. Combine high intelligence floor to entry with specialized problem solving training.

Do you seriously deny that an intelligent person has the capacity to make better decisions than a stupid one? Or that a critical-thinking, applications-based field like engineering and science respectively, should provide the mental tools useful in decision-making?

Why do you think engineers and scientists are less prone to pseudoscience and creationism compared to the general population? They are intelligent and specifically trained in logical, critical scientific thinking.

This isn't to say that they will always do so or remained unbiased ideologically relative to someone without said criteria. I admitted as much. Hoover was an Engineer, and he made some pretty appalling decisions. I am merely saying intelligent people with such a degree should at least in theory be better prepared. And someone IN a field should be better able to make decisions about said field than someone who has no training in it. Why should lawyers be making decisions about medical fields? Political scientists about ecology and climatology policies? They don't know anything.

If you required it, I will get citations regarding the skills necessary for those degrees and the association between intelligence and those fields. I can give you information on the value of intelligence and critical thinking, too. Fine.

[Sarevok]

A better question would be should people holding specific offices like minister of finance or public works be qualified in their fields ?

I mean come on... you have people who never been in the army becoming head of defense ministries everywhere. People who were never doctors making the biggest decisions in medical sector. People with no qualifications in any engineering being allowed to approve everything from dams to roads to power plants. It seems to be get any kind of job you need education. Except for the very top positions in government. Then you can make decisions without any qualifications other than you are popular among the public like a celebrity.

[Bounty]

Do you seriously deny that an intelligent person has the capacity to make better decisions than a stupid one?

Define "stupid". Or rather, tell me whether the correlation between general intelligence and scientific degrees is sufficient to base broad statements on decision making on.

I'm not going to dispute that a person with a scientific degree will have the required ability to understand and implement complex policies; however, while that is an important component of being a political leader, it's hardly the only requirement. Is there a guarantee that your maths major will have a broad historical and cultural knowledge? That he or she is a good judge of character? Is a maths degree an indication that this individual is incorruptible, a competent negotiator, an individual capable of expressing his ideas clearly?

You're making an excellent case for filling government positions with people skilled in the field that office manages, and I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with that, but I'm far from convinced that a person with a maths degree would de facto make a good politician. They are far more likely to have on subset of the skills needed to govern, but it's still just a subset.

[Darth Wong]

The way it should work is that politicians only make broad over-arching decisions, and leave the specific stuff to highly qualified people who are not really part of the political process. However, we've been demonizing the bureaucracy of government for so long that people don't really want that any more. Instead, they want to believe that their politicians exercise direct control over almost every decision that goes on in government, and the politicians are only too happy to feed that perception. We've encouraged political micro-management of government, and it's worked out about as well as micro-management usually does.

You don't really need a politician to be an engineer as long as he defers to engineers about where infrastructure money should be spent for maximum benefit. But of course, that doesn't happen because of this micro-management mentality.

[Jalinth]

Many professions require certain licenses, degrees and other qualifications to perform. For instance, no matter how much an applicant for a doctor's job impresses his or her interviewer, he/she isn't legally able to practice medicine unless he/she has obtained an M.D. and the appropriate licenses. Currently in order to be elected to public office in many areas a candidate only needs to get a sufficient number of votes, despite the fact that in some cases the consequences of a screw-up on their part would be far worse than what even the most incompetent of doctors could manage. Should certain degrees, licenses or other qualifications be required before a potential candidate for public office is eligible to run?

Absolutely not. Professions tend to be very insular and can turn self-serving. Making politicians a profession would make it even more of a lifetime profession than already exists, allows for regulatory capture (think of the views of a politician you loathe - imagine this group "captures" the faculty, school, board, etc... that oversees the profession. Then immigrate )and not sure what would be accomplished. How do you define a "good" politician? How do you measure, evaluate, etc... Promoting gay marriage, to use one volatile example, would be viewed by some people as a defining virtue and by others as a massive vice.

The only exceptions would be for instances, most often in the US, where they elect "professional" posts that should be appointed to begin with. The elected medical examiner needs to be a registered pathologist (some southern US states are notorious for having people in these spots who lack the required skills or independence) , the district attorney needs to be a laywer, the comptroller of a state should be a professional accountant or meet experience requirements (has been the controller, VP Finance, or CFO of a company of a certain size). But these posts aren't what I'd call "political" in a general sense - they are specialized branches of the executive arm of government that many countries fill with either senior civil servants (medical examiners) or senior appointees who have the experience in the area (district attorneys have both the political and the experience/management).

[Axis Kast]

One wonders, as well, precisely which degrees would be required, and by whom. Most legislators come to office with master's equivalents in law, public administration, or business management.

At present, an individual congressman may hold seats on diverse subcommittees - defense, labor, judicial affairs. The alternative to such a system would be barriers on appointment for all those without a specific kind of degree. Rather than rely on issue experts outside government (for example, during debates on the merit of American involvement in the Angolan Civil War in 1975, Africa Subcommittee chairman Dick Clark routinely invited the testimony of top Angola hands in academia). Under your system, I take it, Congressman would themselves be expected to either have such discussion on their own, or would at least have attained a measure of context-specific knowledge to be able to evaluate more credibility what was being said by their witnesses.

This leads us to a difficult problem: how many trained Africanists (for example) will want to become politicians, and how many politicians will not find it too difficult to build a campaign from an obscure corner of academia?

[Darth Wong]

As I said, I think a politician's professional qualifications should be limited to an ethics code which they are bound to obey (and which they can be disciplined for breaching). It's really absurd to me that politicians are not really required to follow any ethical code other than not committing high crimes while in office (and the definition of "high crimes" is rather fluid).

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think you can set up degrees as a requirement for entrance to government. Five seconds later after you set a requirement, nutbar political farm "universities" like Regent University would set up a no-brainer "accredited program" that just happens to be specifically tailored to shuffle the same ideologically pure folks through those requirements into power.

A professional ethics code with actual teeth would be alot more useful, as Mike points out, though getting Congress to adopt it would require a revolution, I'd think.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The way it should work is that politicians only make broad over-arching decisions, and leave the specific stuff to highly qualified people who are not really part of the political process. However, we've been demonizing the bureaucracy of government for so long that people don't really want that any more. Instead, they want to believe that their politicians exercise direct control over almost every decision that goes on in government, and the politicians are only too happy to feed that perception. We've encouraged political micro-management of government, and it's worked out about as well as micro-management usually does.

I've always hated the anti-bureaucracy viewpoint that seems so prevalent in ... well, everywhere. I wish I remembered who wrote this, but I've always liked the quote that goes something like: "Bureaucracy is the red tape that keeps politicians from abusing their power." It really is an essential part of the democratic process, and you are absolutely right about the micro-management trend.

[ray245]

The problems with politicians is they tend to be more ideological as opposed to trying to be practical most of the time. I mean the reason many people here argued for controversial policies like the legalisation of Marijuana is not because we want to smoke weed personally, but the fact that the war against drugs can be said to be a lost cause.

If we can ever devise a system where we end up with more politicians who tend to be practical as opposed to ideological, I will be rejoicing.

[RedImperator]

I've always hated the anti-bureaucracy viewpoint that seems so prevalent in ... well, everywhere. I wish I remembered who wrote this, but I've always liked the quote that goes something like: "Bureaucracy is the red tape that keeps politicians from abusing their power." It really is an essential part of the democratic process, and you are absolutely right about the micro-management trend.

Part of the problem is, when bureaucracy works well, it's invisible. In a well-run organization, you take care of your job, other people take care of theirs, and shit gets done. The only time we become aware of bureaucracy is when it's broken. So everybody grumbles "fucking bureaucrats" when they're getting shuffled from line to line at the DMV, but they think the post office delivers a zillion letters a year by magic. It makes it really easy to blame bureaucrats for everyone's problems--and to be fair, the world is rife with shitty, broken bureaucracies which really do make life worse for everyone. The problem is, as Mike pointed out, that the most popular political solution seems to be micromanagement by the legislature, rather than improving the bureaucracies directly.

[Surlethe]

... rather than improving the bureaucracies directly.

I have some initial thoughts on this, but I'm curious: suppose you're elected President with 538 electoral votes and your party sweeps Congress. How do you identify where it's broken & clean up the federal bureaucracy?