In some countries they do, in others they don't. Why (and why not)?
2006-07-26 21:52:52 · 7 answers · asked by zed hex 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
In Thailand you are required to have a degree from an accredited university before you can stand for parliament - so there is at least one.
What I am suggesting is that there is an obvious anomaly when the most important decisions are being made by semi-educated halfwits.
It is a basic problem of democracy. If everyone has the right to stand, then we get government by the lowest common denominator.
Frank Zappa was once asked "What is the biggest problem in the world?". To which he replied: "The World Stupidity Glut".
Isn't democracy wonderful ;-)
2006-07-27 02:01:09 · update #1
Your question is mistaken. There is no country on earth that maintains an education requirement on elected leaders. The reason is that this is simply undemocratic.
While you and I might agree that those who make the laws for the nation should have an educated background, the idea of democracy is that we are judging people not exclusively on their resumes, but on the basis of their characters as well. And when you think about it, this makes more than a little sense.
Poor education doesn't necessarily make one a bad leader, and to be honest, some of the dumbest people I've ever know had Ph.Ds. The American political commentator William F. Buckley once said that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phonebook than the faculty of Harvard. And there's more than a little truth to that. Hope this answers your question.
2006-07-26 22:34:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because, they are not applying for employment. To represent the people at large, you don't have to be educated. You have Rajya Sabha and the upper house in the states for that. If you insist upon such qualifications for the political representatives, you are indirectly denying the representative rights to the maximum of the population, which was obtained by the then Indian National Congress inthe British Parliament, inthe 19th century, after great stuggle.
2006-07-27 04:55:56 · answer #2 · answered by madurainagpur 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Way, way, long ago (when they wrote things like The Constitution and Bill of Rights) - higher education was only for the very rich elite. If you put that sort of restriction in - even now - it eliminates a huge segment of our society from participating in our government. Such a regulation would end up making people you want in unable to enter the race. Everyone should have a chance.
2006-07-27 06:42:59 · answer #3 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I am aware, no country in the world requires any academic / educational qualification for political office bearers. Politicians are merely suppose to set policy and determine trends, and the practical implimentation are supposed to be done by qualified technocrats.
2006-07-27 05:56:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not? Because that just wouldn't be right. Everyone should have a say in Government. And if they can raise the money and votes, they DESERVE to be in office. Don't worry though, most of them went to law school.
2006-07-27 04:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because most of the ppl ( Bush) had rich dirty politicians for parents.
2006-07-27 04:56:32 · answer #6 · answered by eeyore_0816 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you aren't satisfied with their educational level, you don't vote for them...it's that simple.
2006-07-27 09:22:03 · answer #7 · answered by Jenny A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋