Should a head of state have qualifications?

[Marty_d]

Unless you've been under a rock you'll have heard of the (latest) disgusting act by a putative (Putinised?) US president, who in front of TV cameras with his arse-licking VP, berated another head of state (a real one) for note showing enough gratitude to the US.

 

Obvious this is not the first, or even 1000th, indication that despite legally being voted into office, this... person... is not a fit and proper leader of any group of people, much less the president of the USA.

 

Which raises the question.  Should a head of state be qualified - at anything?  Should there be a character test?  A psychological evaluation?  Any sort of thorough investigation into their past that would indicate their fitness for office?

 

At the moment, in non-royal democratic countries anyway, all that is required is a lot of money and the nomination of a political party.  This nomination doesn't have to be based on the person's character, ethics or morality - in fact it's most likely to be the person who can direct the most votes to themselves through the application of power - favours, horse trading, intimidation.  At best it's "this person is our team's best chance of winning the election" which is a very different matter from being good for the country.

 

At least countries with royal families tend to raise / train their children to act like a leader (in Charlie's case, the world's longest apprenticeship).  That's not to say there haven't been some right royal twats, inbred to buggery, who shouldn't have been in charge of a tea party - but at least it's something.

 

Arguing the opposing side, in that Oval Office debacle there was another President, a man deserving of the title as he's led his invaded country extremely well in a war of resistance for three years.  His only qualification?  That he once acted as a president in a TV comedy.  So sitting together you had two ex-TV actors, one doing an extremely good job, the other one a convicted criminal and general waste of oxygen whose best contribution to humanity would be to realise what a twat he is, fire everyone he ever chose for his administration and apologise profusely to the world before topping himself.

If qualifications were required, MAYBE Zelenskyy would have them, I don't know enough about him - but Trump would definitely not.  

 

What do you think?

 

 

[onetrack]

I've talked about this for decades to anyone who'd listen. Becoming a politician is the only job in the world where you have no need to present or produce any skills or qualifications records, or job history record, to get the political seat.

 

The only major requirement is to be able to suck up to the unelected powerbrokers who control nearly everything behind the scenes, with their money and status.

[rgmwa]

Zelenskyy has a law degree but never worked in the legal field, however he became a leader of his country. Trump has an economics degree and became a criminal and a leader of his country. Rumour has it that Trump got someone else to sit his exams, so there is also some doubt about his degree.

 

Edited March 3 by rgmwa

[facthunter]

Trump is exceptionally IGNORANT Has a small brain, He BULLIES and Power goes to his head. Exactly the Person to run the USA. Yes IF there's NO ONE ELSE there.   Nev

[nomadpete]

When it comes to deciding what a politician needs, to qualify for the job - I call Mr Zelenskyy as an example.

 

1. 

He was elected without the financial backing of a PAC or mining company.

 

2.

He is still alive in spite of showing outstanding international diplomacy and leadership. (And in spite of getting egg on Putin's face).

 

3.

He has done more to unite Europe than anybody I can think of.

 

4.

He managed to get Trump and Vance make themselves look like childish bullys on international television..... without actually saying much at all.

Edited March 14 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

He has REAL GUTS and doesn't dress up like POX Doctors Assistant or a GONG laden Russian General.. All we've got from Russia in the Last 18 Years is LIES. NO ONE can TRUST PUTIN. Nev

[Marty_d]

All we've got from the US is lies too... From about January 2017 to January 2021, then again from January 2025.

[facthunter]

HE was Robbed of the election in between too, poor chap,. He's had a tough life. Sob,   Such Injustice is hard to put up with, Nev

[old man emu]

Just thinking of our Prime Ministers. A quick check indicated that from Whitlam to Albanese, all our Prime Ministers (except Keating) held Degrees in legal or economic studies. Maybe we could say that Keating attended the University of Hard Knocks. So you can't say that our Prime Ministers didn't have suitable qualifications for the job.

[nomadpete]

Nice theory, OME.

 

But what about ethics? There isn't a test of ethics for the winner of an election.

[Marty_d]

Who shall watch the watchers?

 

I agree that a test of ethics, intelligence, character and personality, plus a psychological examination,should be mandatory for not only politicians but also any senior people (board members, directors and other senior executives) in public service AND private companies.

 

But anyone who didn't pass, and everyone on the lunatic fringe, would argue that no one is qualified to administer that test.

 

I reckon an independent body could do it, led by someone prominent and above reproach (Australian of the year for services to charity, for example), with evidence based support from professorial subject matter experts from leading universities, and highly vetted staff.

[old man emu]

32 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Nice theory, OME. But what about ethics? There isn't a test of ethics for the winner of an election.

The question asked related to a leader having qualifications which would aid in leadership. I was looking at qualifications that would affect policy, not morality. Morality is something else that one would look for in a leader, but that is not linked to what one gains from study and the application of that study. 

 

There are many things which make a good leader. Too many to list here, so I restricted myself to academic qualifications to restrict the conversation somewhat.

[nomadpete]

51 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Who shall watch the watchers?

Read Plato's Republic.

 

I think it was there that Plato proposed a education structure whereby, along their learning process,  people were diverted into suitable career paths. At the end of the conveyor belt all That's left is the philosophers. Genuine philosophers are not interested in personal power and wealth. So they were to be selected to govern. And only paid in board and lodging.

[Marty_d]

Intelligent blokes, those Greeks.

Apparently they invented sex too, but it was the Romans who thought of involving women.

[facthunter]

The Irish claim that change.. Nev

[Litespeed]

21 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Intelligent blokes, those Greeks.

Apparently they invented sex too, but it was the Romans who thought of involving women.

As a proud Roman/ German/Irish/Scott, I concur.

 

And we invented the orgy.

[facthunter]

 Aw Gee. How do you separate the Men from the boys in Greece?.................................................................................... With great difficulty . Lets not talk about the Romans  and plenty of others. Nev