The leader and his certificate

“Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke”

Analysing the depths of the above mentioned, opinionated, Mr. Will Rogers’ quote, I don’t think that the truth which lies in it is a far-fetched one as it seems like the role of the politician is lost in the desire of becoming a an overnight freedom fighting sensation regardless of the technicalities required behind-the-scenes in order to obtain such a controversial and tricky occupation.

Should leaders or rather politicians have qualifications behind their high esteemed careers?

It’s easy to argue that yes, there should be a minimum required educational qualification for the politicians as they play a role in forming national policies affecting millions. They are the face of the nation overseas and generally looking at it, imagine an uneducated head of state giving a speech on a topic such as “the economic impact of recession”; being able to spell or pronounce the topic isn’t good enough Sir or madam;  and if every other occupation has a minimum required qualification then why not politics? After all it is the backbone of any country, so it should only make sense that the politicians should be completely strong in each and every aspect. Even strippers these days (who shake it for way less than politicians’ monthly income) require some prior knowledge on working the pole.

In the same argument though, it can be laid out that to be a good politician, you only really need to be a good leader. Meaning that you need to be able to make good decisions, empathise with the people and have a vision for the future – none of which are things you learn at school or college. Literacy is necessary, maybe, but not a college degree. Abraham Lincoln never had a full year of schooling in his entire life, and it can’t be denied that he was an amazing leader. Another thing is that if putting a minimum of education was important, it would have been included in the first place. Keep in mind, back in the day, only a handful of people held college degrees yet, countries dealt with most of the same problems they do today, i.e. Foreign policies, economy, recession, unemployment, poverty, imports, exports, immigrants, security, etc. Commonsense is what lacks in most in governments today -not MBAs or PhDs, and unfortunately there isn’t a school that teaches that or a degree in place for exhibiting it.

Uh oh… two very heavy weighing statements on a couple of scales, however, as strong as both arguments are, in my opinion and I’m sure that most will agree with me, I believe that politicians should have some sort of educational background, because many leadership attributes are gained through education. Leaders with no or limited education will not be able to cope with the constant changes therefore hindering a country’s development. They should be matured, experienced, kind, educated, and should understand people’s feelings, thinking, vision etc. and that all comes from education itself and our moral life.

Not necessarily saying that education and knowledge are acquired through a written degree, anyone in today’s world can get a degree just by paying some amount – but they should be so knowledgeable that  even if their doctorates are proven to be fakes; their ability to lead and handle situations should give people the benefit of the doubt. Unconstitutional? Maybe, but products such as Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein and many more throughout history, have no educational qualifications that can be spoken of and yet have proven to be great leaders, in fact they are amongst the most powerful motivations of the world.  Some see informal education as the learning that goes on in daily life. For example, In this case it would be through conversations, community work and the exploration of common human life and overall experiences. Its purpose, we suggest, is to cultivate communities, associations and relationships that make for human flourishing. As situations arise we respond and therefore better the learning projects that we undertake for ourselves, going through a refining process, so the same could apply for the above mentioned prominent figures and politicians without qualifications and for the most part.

Anybody can deem themselves a politician, if they are outspoken, opinionated or controversial enough (I mean, every time I get a good idea, I think of running for Mayor… which is probably not such a good idea) but to be a political leader, you must have some sort of deeper insight and understanding of the game. At least study something like humanities, behavioural sciences, communications, social work or how to deal with problems for the masses. You can be born being able to speak well and communicate with people on different levels, but what you speak about must be backed up, which usually is accompanied by some sort of qualification as it acts as the butter to the bread.

To the commoner: Whatever the conclusion manufactured in your head, the whole ideology of “when in doubt, wear a suit.” is one with many faults. Look at many politicians: you see them in a suit, and they look fine. You take a look at their reasoning and their suits are as worthless as their bought qualification. Look at some presidents on our own continent; they have qualifications hanging up on their walls but are some of the most ignorant and irrational people yet.

To the politician: Qualification or not, know what you’re bringing to the table and birth your talk because we, out here will judge you based on your ability to back it up. #justsaying