There must be more
QUALIFICATIONS of a candidate running for public office should be more than his/her ability to read and write. Yes, it's true that voters are responsible for choosing somebody whom they believe are best qualified for a certain public position especially congressional and senatorial. I believe that there should be a law that would allow only the competent and educated people to run for public office. By being competent, it means that he/she has a proper grasp of what lawmaking, leadership and public enforcement mean and that he/ she can withstand an ardous wit-whirling debate. On the other hand, being educated implies that he/she has at least a college degree. There are concepts taught in college that make an individual capable of understanding society and human nature better: Sociology and Psychology, for instance. It is especially essential for someone who will serve people and be a major influence on society to appreciate and fully comprehend such concepts (society and human nature.) because if not we will be under the power of ignorant people. Aside from that, since education is the primary concern of everyone, wouldn't it be ironic to advocate the importance of education if the candidate himself/herself hasn't had a decent one? He or she hasn't even got herself one so how sure are we that he/she truly understood its importance? I don't think it is necessary that all our public officials be lawyers or some hotshot political or social analyst. In fact, I believe that it would be better if our public officials will come from different professions so that the concerns of each would be attended fairly. But again, of course, they should possess the aforementioned qualifications. With all these said, I wish to express my dismay at political aspirants who are better off as athletes, celebrities and ordinary citizens. We should have the "cream of the crop" candidates to choose from because we deserve the best.
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.inquirer.net/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/477