We can all see the sense in requiring certification for some key professions. Some examples are MD, Engineering, Architecture, Law, Computer Science, Accounting, etc…
Why not require a similar certification for politicians? Now I know that often a politician will have a Law or Business degree and I am sure there are not a few with simply a BA degree. But does that necessarily qualify them to be political leaders?
Imagine this for a moment. A person seeking to enter public office must go through a university degree program which teaches him the correct way to serve the public. Among the chief training topics will be honesty, integrity, intimate knowledge of gov’t procedures.
If in his later career, the politician is found to be accepting bribes he may be brought before his peers to be judged and disbarred if found guilty of the charges - thus prevented him/her from running for public office ever again.
Hey, it works for doctors and lawyers… why not politicians… of course today’s politicians would never vote in favour of this kind of system. That would amount to career suicide.
This has the undemocratic effect of barring the vast majority of the citizenry from holding public office.
Furthermore, I don’t think you can teach the politicians to be moral. The degrees in the fields that you mention teach technical skill, not something lacking in most politicians.
And I’m not so sure this “works for” doctors or lawyers either. Unless you mean “for” as in “in their favor”.
The vast majority of citizenry has no business being in public office!
I must disagree. The requirement for a medical degree restricts fairly effectively the practice of unlicensed quackery. To my knowldedge no n’er do well biology graduate with a scalpel has access to an operating room. Certainly there are shysters who practice all kinds of crazy pseudo-holistic witchcraft type healing but for the average reasoning individual, a medical degree from a recognizeable school nailed to the wall of a doctor’s office tends to lend some validity to his/her credentials. It’s not the whole story on his abilities but certainly a good start. Similarly for a lawyer, engineer and accountant.
Also, not only will this remain entirely democratic, it will have the net effect of weeding out the useless wankers from politics. No longer would it be possible to rise to this level simply because you happen to look good on camera and fake sincerity well enough to fool most people. Certainly being a Bush or Kennedy will no longer mean cart blanche to public office. Yes, you’ve go to posess political savvy, true enough, but you’ve also got to have credentials. If public service is really what a person chooses for a career then he/she must be willing to go through the proper training program. I suspect that a few semesters of ethics classes will not harm any politician or impinge on his democratic rights.
To make things more accessable for the average citizen you could taylor educational requirements depending on the level of public office. For example, municipal public office will not require the same level of training as County or State positions.
The vast majority of citizens who have no business being in public office will also have no chance of being elected. However, it is important that the vast majority of citizens be eligible for public office, should the people wish to elect them. Your idea that the wishes of the people to elect so-and-so should be overridden because he does not have confirmation from Professor so-and-so strikes me as undemocratic.
What I said about not working for doctors and lawyers was the system of being brought before his peers etc. I am more comfortable having politicians judged by the public at the polls, than by their cronies in some committee.
Its unclear what you hope to accomplish with this scheme. Are the politicians lacking in technical skill at running things, that they would stand to gain by taking a course. In the case of doctors and lawyers and the other proffessionals that you mention this is the case. What knowledge do think is commonly lacking that a course would teach?
What is the point of a course in ethics? Are you saying that politicians are corrupt because of genuine confusion over what is “professional” for a politician to do? I don’t think so.
I don’t hold most politicians in high regard. Often I find that our politicians become politicians because they genuinely lack any real skills or means by which to make a living. Some of our career politicians seem to inherit their jobs due to their family names, i.e. Bush, Kennedy.
If, by requiring them to have a degree in Public Service, we discourage some of the ones who look to politics as a trough from which to feed on public and corporate funds, then we will have accomplished something useful.
Of course, major political reforms would have to go along with this requirement. Things like corporate funding of political candidates would be top on my list of things to change.
As for cronie-ism, no profession is more guilty of this than the occupation of politics. I do not trust the average voter to let his vote do the judging. As a rule, I notice very few politicians being punished for poor performance in office. Most voters have very short memories and often fail to understand the heart of issues. The only thing that tends to separate a politician from the seat of power is usually blatant transgressions having to do with sex or money - and even that is not always true. For an example of how it fails you need only look at Marion Barrie, former mayor of DC.
What you get when you start instituting tests is a seperated beuracracy like they had in China. You could have a canidate with great ideas, but oops, they didn’t get their degree. You would also get only proffesional politions. If you wanted to go into politics you would have to decide so at the college level. This would lead to an increase in family dynasties. Son following in fathers footsteps. Also, what would people who got the degree do if they didn’t get elected?
The best way to reform is to ensure the widest possible articipation on the greatest number of levels. By cutting that out you are again, instituting a sperate beauracracy.
In my boyfriend’s ritzy expensive private school, 75% of the graduates in 2000 went to Ivy Legue schools. Most of the others went to schools like UC Berkeley. Most of them will continue their traineing to law, business or med school.
At my ghetto high school, going to a community college was a bit of an accomplishment. I doubt more than a few of the 2000 graduates who did make it to college are going on to post-secondary education. I’d love to, but I am going to graduate $12,000 in debt (and I got the best financial aid around) and I don’t think I can afford to add to that.
I can’t see making holding public office even harder for those of us born poor.
Beaurocracy, like entropy, is ever increasing. Much as we rail against it, it happens despite us. In fact, I think deep down inside most people want the comfort and control of rules and laws so that they can beat “those others” over the heads with them.
Another school program would not contribute significantly to this phenomena.
Medicine, Law, Engineering are also family dynasties. I don’t agree that politicians sons and daughters would follow their father’s foot steps any more than these other noble professions. Also, don’t forget that it is not enough to simply have a degree in PS. You must also get elected. In that respect, it would be easier to become a doctor.
But isn’t Politics already a separate and very real beaurocracy? Seems like there is no lack of secret hand shakes and knowing winks accross the congress floor. At least with a degree in PS, the dead wood would stand a greater chance of being weeded out.
even sven -
PS schools need not be ivy league schools at all. We might consider subsidizing them to encourage enrollment (I know, higher taxes - but perhaps not that much more). An aptitude test would be required, natch. It would not be any more/less fair than any other aptitude test for any other profession.
Hey look folks, it’s not a fully cooked idea ;), but someone’s got to admit it’s got some merrit… please…anyone… ;)… oh, well, back to the drawing board.
You obviously believe that people without this degree should not be elected. Seeing as how people without the degree get elected anyway, clearly the majority disagrees with you. Why should you be able to impose your will upon the majority?
I’m pretty sure that institutions dedicated to the theory and practice of good govt. already exist - Harvard’s Kennedy school of govt., Cornell’s school of public admin. etc. Of course, most universities have Poly Sci. depts. offering BS,MS, & PhD. My understanding is that a lot of Dem. pols have either studied at the Kenndy school, or been influenced by the work done there. There’s been less influence on the GOP side - they want to dismantle govt., not make it work better.
It’s still the case that most pols. have law degrees, and law schools offer decent preparation for a political career, when you consider that most elected officals either make or enforce laws. Trial lawyers and politicians have a similar task in that the must both persuade members of the general public.
What lawyers and pols do w/ their skills is another question. Like a skilled chemical engineer who can make nerve gas or fertilizer equally well, what the skilled pol does with his or her power is more of a moral and ethical question than a professional one.
