cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1499200/why-don-t-countries-add-harder-requirements-for-becoming-a-president-like-having-a-decor
It seems to me the obvious next step.
I mean if other jobs requirements like IT and even accounting had started asking for more certifications and experience to work, then why the heck shouldn’t presidents get asked to be more qualified for their jobs?
The last few prime ministers in the UK have all been extremely well educated. Attending private schools such as Eton and Uxbridge and then attending top universities.
On paper they have been incredibly talented. In reality they were fucking useless.
The best leaders are the ones who seek the views and advice of experts in their respective fields. They appoint advisors based on their experience, skills and qualifications.
The shitty leaders surround themselves with yes men and sycophants
Oxbridge* mixed with Oxford and Cambridge Uxbridge is just unimportant suburb of north London. That being said Uxbridge used to be called oxbridge in 12th venture and then voxbridge and then huxbridge before taking Uxbridge in mid 15th century.
Not sure if the fact was fun, but it was definitely occupying space in my brain but adding very little value.
Or, you know, maybe some basic stuff, like not having committed treason, not having been convicted of 34 felony counts of fraud or been civil convicted of rape. Little stuff.
Putin convicted Navalny of embezzlement to get him off the ballot.
And 23 actual people, not Biden, decided to indict Trump and 12 jurors decided to convict him.
Definitely throw him in jail, confiscate his assets. But laws work both ways and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Likewise giving the president so much power seems to have been a detriment to both Russia and USA. But that comes with the territories of the US having FPTP and Russia being a multi party parliament under a dictatorial president.
Laws go both ways? That doesn’t sound right.
If it is important to the public, they will use it as a selection metric when voting. Otherwise, it could be manipulated by the current government as a way to restrict future candidates.
It’s fundamentally more democratic. A president isn’t simply a job, but meant to be a representative of the people, so it should be a role that’s open to whoever the people choose.
As for the problem of horrible people becoming president, I think the better way to tackle that is to limit and distribute the president’s powers. Presidential systems suck, having so much power rest on a single person, even a democratically elected one, is just a bad idea.
The problem with this is that people can be manipulated.
Do you really believe a degree is the main thing stopping heads of states from acting in the service of others instead of themselves?
Have you seen starship troopers? The book goes more into detail about their politics.
But the TL;DR is that you can’t become a politician without serving for three years. You’re not fit to make choices for everyone else’s good if you’re not prepared to give your own life for the common good.
A bit more grim, even. Service is required to become a citizen, it’s not by birth. Also, it’s easier for citizens to get a baby license.
As a person who has spent his entire adult life in or working for the military, I support a service commitment provided the military is not the only option
In the book there were many ways to serve.
I’ve not read the book or seen the movie only the memes.
In the book, civil service type jobs are fine if you can’t serve the military for whatever reason. But you have to put your time in working for the state.
